User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 6:11:44 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not what I said. Work on your reading comprehension. Pulling someone over requires a crime. Police should be required to notify you of that crime so they don't have a month to play creative writing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does knowing the reason make the stop good or bad? No. If you think the stop was bad you go to court and fight it there not on the side of the street. How is this hard? Also this is why I think police should have to state the reason for pulling you over either to the driver or note it in some other way at that time. I police officer shouldn't have a month and hindsight to figure out why he pilled you over. 
You dont understand how the fourth amendment works. Pulling someone over requires a crime. Police should be required to notify you of that crime so they don't have a month to play creative writing. A cop can have a reason to pull you over and not tell you. The fourth amendment doesnt require that the cop tell you why he pulled you over. A month? Hyperbolic frenzy much? If he cites you, its on the ticket, a minute after he pulls you,over. Leave the law to people who understand it. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but its an infraction, not a crime. You really think he didnt pull him over for a witnessed infraction? Get a clue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 6:12:59 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, I know that the government likes to play games and say that it is a civil action or an infraction all so that they get a lower burden of proof and you don't have a right to a lawyer. But as far as I'm concerned, if the government is coming after you in court it should be considered crime. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pulling someone over requires reasonable suspicion that they have commited, are committing, or are about to commit a crime. If there is no crime then there can be no reasonable suspicion. No reasonable suspicion means that you have been unreasonably seized.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 6:59:17 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, i see. Youve got your own version of how the constitution works. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pulling someone over requires reasonable suspicion that they have commited, are committing, or are about to commit a crime. If there is no crime then there can be no reasonable suspicion. No reasonable suspicion means that you have been unreasonably seized. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 7:07:49 PM EDT
[#4]
You know you're about to get fucked up when cops put gloves on, lol. That looks like the same apartments where a Taylor officer was shot and killed a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 7:10:51 PM EDT
[#5]
I feel SO much safer now. Props on that officer for being such a sincere public servant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 7:14:06 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The idea that the government should treat violations of the law as crimes rather than as a monetary dispute between two parties is an affront to the Constitution? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pulling someone over requires reasonable suspicion that they have commited, are committing, or are about to commit a crime. If there is no crime then there can be no reasonable suspicion. No reasonable suspicion means that you have been unreasonably seized.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 7:19:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...because thats what i said? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pulling someone over requires reasonable suspicion that they have commited, are committing, or are about to commit a crime. If there is no crime then there can be no reasonable suspicion. No reasonable suspicion means that you have been unreasonably seized. Perhaps you should learn to express your position with your words before telling other people theirs isn't up to snuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 7:23:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't think you deserve to know why a cop pulls you over? What if you hand over your license and registration, then he comes back from his car and hands you a reckless driving ticket 30 feet from dropping your kid off at daycare because he hates white people? Or maybe because he's behind on his quota? What you don't get to do is appoint yourself as the judge and conduct a trial through the window and/or impose your own set of rules or conditions on if, how, or after what other events you will produce what you are legally obligated to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 7:25:31 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If he hands you a ticket, you've got the reason right there, in writing, don't you? What you don't get to do is appoint yourself as the judge and conduct a trial through the window and/or impose your own set of rules or conditions on if, how, or after what other events you will produce what you are legally obligated to. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You don't think you deserve to know why a cop pulls you over? What if you hand over your license and registration, then he comes back from his car and hands you a reckless driving ticket 30 feet from dropping your kid off at daycare because he hates white people? Or maybe because he's behind on his quota? What you don't get to do is appoint yourself as the judge and conduct a trial through the window and/or impose your own set of rules or conditions on if, how, or after what other events you will produce what you are legally obligated to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 7:46:07 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there a legal requirement on the police to de-escalate people who refuse to obey the law, or is there a legal requirement for people to obey the law in the first place and de-escalate their own unlawful behavior when confronted by the police? I'll give you a hint, the former doesn't exist except in the mind of the ACLU and some idiotic department policies. The latter has been the law of the land since longer than you've been alive. If you commit a traffic violation you don't get to put conditions on when you produce your documents. You stopped being in control of the interaction when you violated the law and got pulled over. The officer doesn't owe you an explanation before you produce the documents you are required to carry when operating a vehicle. The interaction can consist entirely of "Give me your license and registration" and "Here is your ticket for xxx." Explaining the reason for the stop is just the polite thing to do, not a legal requirement, and you most certainly do not get to play the "You have to tell me what I did" game. A serial rapist falls up a few flights of steps? No cares. Someone rolls through a stop sign at 5mph and ends up getting pulled out of a half opened or broken out window? Officer friendly needs to find a new career. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 8:10:25 PM EDT
[#11]
Justifiable smash, although, I would have probably handled it differently.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 8:12:54 PM EDT
[#12]
showing driver's license to a cop at a traffic stop is part of the conditions of having a DL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 8:13:05 PM EDT
[#13]
Eh, fastest ive seen is 17 seconds from lights on to broken glass and the polyester party.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 8:18:50 PM EDT
[#14]
He chose poorly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 8:39:59 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know you're about to get fucked up when cops put gloves on, lol. That looks like the same apartments where a Taylor officer was shot and killed a few years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 8:44:56 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sort of. Got pulled over one night on the interstate, had my cruise at 72 (70 speed limit). Trooper said he clocked me doing 83. I was like, uh, no, you didn't. Takes my license and registration back to his car, comes back and repeats again that he clocked me doing 83. I said, "I'm not calling you a liar so maybe you gunned someone else, I have no idea, but there's no fucking way in hell you gunned me at 83. I've had my cruise set for the past 45 miles at the same exact speed. I'm in no hurry to get where I'm going so no, you did not clock me going 83 mph. So, yeah." He was like, "well, just make sure we're going the speed limit, have a good night."  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 8:57:40 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The city very well may pay out "go away money". In today's society that is common and unfortunately ends up being part of the norm that we see now. Does the guy deserve any money? Nope, but that is left up to the city and insurance company. Some departments figure out what they expect the defense against a law suit will cost, and will automatically settle for a certain percentage or less. Right and wrong on the part of the officer isn't a factor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 9:03:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Because apparently there was no God damn good reason for the stop sans fishing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 9:26:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I read fine, smug one. Work on your comm skills if your message is fucked. And it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does knowing the reason make the stop good or bad? No. If you think the stop was bad you go to court and fight it there not on the side of the street. How is this hard? Also this is why I think police should have to state the reason for pulling you over either to the driver or note it in some other way at that time. I police officer shouldn't have a month and hindsight to figure out why he pilled you over.
You dont understand how the fourth amendment works. Pulling someone over requires a crime. Police should be required to notify you of that crime so they don't have a month to play creative writing. Quoted:
A cop can have a reason to pull you over and not tell you. The fourth amendment doesnt require that the cop tell you why he pulled you over. Quoted:
A month? Hyperbolic frenzy much? If he cites you, its on the ticket, a minute after he pulls you,over. Quoted:
Leave the law to people who understand it. Quoted:
And, not to put too fine a point on it, but its an infraction, not a crime. Quoted:
You really think he didnt pull him over for a witnessed infraction? Get a clue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 9:42:24 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
showing driver's license to a cop at a traffic stop is part of the conditions of having a DL |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 9:48:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He chose poorly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 10:01:49 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because apparently there was no God damn good reason for the stop sans fishing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 10:02:22 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He chose poorly. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 10:02:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
8 pages and it really is that fuckin simple. The driver held all the cards and choose the path that resulted in him being cuffed and stuffed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
showing driver's license to a cop at a traffic stop is part of the conditions of having a DL |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 10:16:09 PM EDT
[#25]
Both the driver and the cop were assholes.
Does the cop have to tell you why they pulled you over, nope they do not have to but does it hurt any thing? If nothing else it would have shown that the officer tried to work with the guy. Simple fact is every LEO is a public relations officer as well. Nope its not a law, but if they think other wise they are stupid fools. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 10:23:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So then what did you then mean by "Youve (sic) got your own version of how the constitution (sic) works."? Perhaps you should learn to express your position with your words before telling other people theirs isn't up to snuff. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pulling someone over requires reasonable suspicion that they have commited, are committing, or are about to commit a crime. If there is no crime then there can be no reasonable suspicion. No reasonable suspicion means that you have been unreasonably seized. Perhaps you should learn to express your position with your words before telling other people theirs isn't up to snuff. How refreshing. I make a living expressing myself, cupcake. The day i need advice from you is the day i hang up my shingle . And dont have a fit because your idiotic "so you mean (something the other person didint say, nor is it a logical extension of anything they wrote)" got smashed. Here is a pro tip. I will say what i think, you get to say what you think. Ham handed and moronic extensions of what you think my postion means, while popular with mushy headed know it alls, is a crappy debate tactic. The fourth amendment doesnt say, and has never been held to say, that if a cop has probable cause, hey must reveal it to the accused, traffic or not, nor has it been held to say that if a cop doesnt state probable cause to the accused, there is no probable cause. Its got nothing to do with, nor does it require me to address, whether an infraction should be a crime. Carry on. Edit, love the (sic) commentary. Always a sign of a rational argument. Ill let you know if i need an editor. Wait by the phone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 10:30:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Letting the driver control the stop doesn't de-escalate things. Letting the driver play the "I am not cooperating until the officer answers my questions " game gives control to the driver. The driver thinks he can argue and fight the stop right there. That makes everything worse. cop initiates contact with me for seemingly no reason I will Politely ask the reason and this guy does ask the reason politely. Is driving RS of not having a license? No mother fucker it's not so you better have a reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 10:42:23 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Muh command presence! Dude is an asshole true, but cop is too and the difference is the public employs the cop. Should one never ever ever question authority? If it's not a valid stop dude has no legal requirement to provide ID, how fucking hard is it to just give a reason if you have one? I get you can't let the guy take over the stop but a lot of cops are taking this command and control shit too far in a society that does not respond as their instructors taught them. When I get pulled over I know why, but if a cop initiates contact with me for seemingly no reason I will Politely ask the reason and this guy does ask the reason politely. Is driving RS of not having a license? No mother fucker it's not so you better have a reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Letting the driver control the stop doesn't de-escalate things. Letting the driver play the "I am not cooperating until the officer answers my questions " game gives control to the driver. The driver thinks he can argue and fight the stop right there. That makes everything worse. cop initiates contact with me for seemingly no reason I will Politely ask the reason and this guy does ask the reason politely. Is driving RS of not having a license? No mother fucker it's not so you better have a reason. Come on. What about when the cop says "i pulled you over for running that stop sign," and citizen of the month says, "no, i didnt. Im not showing id, this is an unlawful stop"? You say you know why you get pulled over, why doesnt this guy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 10:45:08 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ham handed and moronic extensions of what you think my postion means, while popular with mushy headed know it alls, is a crappy debate tactic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ham handed and moronic extensions of what you think my postion means, while popular with mushy headed know it alls, is a crappy debate tactic. Quoted:
What does that have to do with an obligation to tell the stopped driver anything? Do you want to pretend a cop cant have reasonalbe suspicion unless he tells the driver before getting ID?
You dont understand how the fourth amendment works. Quoted:
The fourth amendment doesnt say, and has never been held to say, that if a cop has probable cause, hey must reveal it to the accused, traffic or not, nor has it been held to say that if a cop doesnt state probable cause to the accused, there is no probable cause. Quoted:
Also this is why I think police should have to state the reason for pulling you over either to the driver or note it in some other way at that time. I police officer shouldn't have a month and hindsight to figure out why he pilled you over. Quoted:
Its got nothing to do with, nor does it require me to address, whether an infraction should be a crime. Quoted:
Edit, love the (sic) commentary. Always a sign of a rational argument. Quoted:
Work on your comm skills if your message is fucked. And it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 10:46:20 PM EDT
[#30]
Its not that hard for the cop to just tell the guy why he was being pulled over. Its not a big deal but the cop wanted to play big boss man and be in charge. Well now he's got a shitshow on his hands. You can be technically correct and still find yourself in a mess. Now he's broken the guys window and dragged him out of the car.....over what? In this climate he could have handled it much better.
The driver....you're not gonna win on the side of the road. Give up your license and insurance and argue about it later through the court system, lawyer or filing a complaint if you feel you've been wronged. Two boneheads making poor choices but honestly....like another poster said, I hate when they wont say why they pulled you over or play the game of "do you know why?" No, I dont know why because I'm not incriminating myself (which is why they do that). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 10:47:19 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So a roadside courtroom/fight is the way to go? Come on. What about when the cop says "i pulled you over for running that stop sign," and citizen of the month says, "no, i didnt. Im not showing id, this is an unlawful stop"? You say you know why you get pulled over, why doesnt this guy? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Letting the driver control the stop doesn't de-escalate things. Letting the driver play the "I am not cooperating until the officer answers my questions " game gives control to the driver. The driver thinks he can argue and fight the stop right there. That makes everything worse. cop initiates contact with me for seemingly no reason I will Politely ask the reason and this guy does ask the reason politely. Is driving RS of not having a license? No mother fucker it's not so you better have a reason. Come on. What about when the cop says "i pulled you over for running that stop sign," and citizen of the month says, "no, i didnt. Im not showing id, this is an unlawful stop"? You say you know why you get pulled over, why doesnt this guy? This might help too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 10:51:39 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Drivers License, Registration, Proof of Insurance.... It isn't really that hard of a concept to understand. Has anyone ever won an argument with a cop on the side of the road? Never showed my ID. No incident ensued. Not citation issued. FYI, it was a BS stop. We were stopped as part of a drug interdiction scheme that involves profiling. Vehicles pulling a box trailer are stopped. We were not speeding or committing any violation. To the topic, good shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 10:51:51 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Based on the dialogue that I heard (haven't finished the video yet): "I'll tell you what's going on, you're probably suspended so you don't want to show me your license" combined with the fact that the officer appeared to have been waiting for that particular video... It appears to me that the officer recognized the driver and knew him to be suspended, so he stopped him for driving while suspended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2017 11:08:59 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is funny as hell after you wrote this: Let me draw your attention back to my earilier statement because it seems you are stuck executing on what you've said is a crappy debate tactic. See that word THINK? That means that I understand that it isn't a current requirement. Then why did you quote a discussion on that? Perhaps you should follow your own advice again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ham handed and moronic extensions of what you think my postion means, while popular with mushy headed know it alls, is a crappy debate tactic. Quoted:
What does that have to do with an obligation to tell the stopped driver anything? Do you want to pretend a cop cant have reasonalbe suspicion unless he tells the driver before getting ID?
You dont understand how the fourth amendment works. Quoted:
The fourth amendment doesnt say, and has never been held to say, that if a cop has probable cause, hey must reveal it to the accused, traffic or not, nor has it been held to say that if a cop doesnt state probable cause to the accused, there is no probable cause. Quoted:
Also this is why I think police should have to state the reason for pulling you over either to the driver or note it in some other way at that time. I police officer shouldn't have a month and hindsight to figure out why he pilled you over. Quoted:
Its got nothing to do with, nor does it require me to address, whether an infraction should be a crime. Quoted:
Edit, love the (sic) commentary. Always a sign of a rational argument. Quoted:
Work on your comm skills if your message is fucked. And it is. Youre not, though. So now youre pretending that if i quote a discussion of some point, but do not say something about the entire quote, then you get to tell me what i think about the part i did not speak to? Is that the way this works? No wonder you persist in thinking youre doing well. You could really use a clue. Ive been utterly consistent, clear, and correct. The fourth amendment doesnt say, nor has it ever been held to require, that probable cause be stated by an investigating officer to the accused at any point before an arrest. Because it doesnt require it. . Its also never been held to erase probable cause if the investigating officer doesnt disclose it. It doesnt matter what you "think", amd your posts confirm thst youre using that term loosely. Your subjective thoughts on what cops should have to do is neither relevant to a critique of this cop's actions, not is it interesting My position does NOT require me to state a position on infraction versus criminal act, because the fourth amendment doesnt require it for a crime, which is what the courts are looking at in most reviews of this subject. If its not required for a suspected crime, then even if an infraction "should be" a crime, it is not a requirement that a cop state probable cause on the roadside. And, of course, practically speaking, it solves nothing. The combative people are simply going to proclsim that they didnt do whatever the cop says he saw them do. Stop trying to slice up my posts in some half assed crusade to pretend something is "funny as hell" or that you get to use my words aganst me. Youve yet to catch me in a contradiction, or make some reasoned argument that my statements are incorrect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 12:02:23 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The fourth amendment doesnt say, nor has it ever been held to require, that probable cause be stated by an investigating officer to the accused at any point before an arrest. Because it doesnt require it. . Its also never been held to erase probable cause if the investigating officer doesnt disclose it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The fourth amendment doesnt say, nor has it ever been held to require, that probable cause be stated by an investigating officer to the accused at any point before an arrest. Because it doesnt require it. . Its also never been held to erase probable cause if the investigating officer doesnt disclose it. Quoted:
It doesnt matter what you "think", amd your posts confirm thst youre using that term loosely. Your subjective thoughts on what cops should have to do is neither relevant to a critique of this cop's actions, not is it interesting Quoted:
My position does NOT require me to state a position on infraction versus criminal act, because the fourth amendment doesnt require it for a crime, which is what the courts are looking at in most reviews of this subject. If its not required for a suspected crime, then even if an infraction "should be" a crime, it is not a requirement that a cop state probable cause on the roadside. Quoted:
And, of course, practically speaking, it solves nothing. The combative people are simply going to proclsim that they didnt do whatever the cop says he saw them do. Quoted:
Stop trying to slice up my posts in some half assed crusade to pretend something is "funny as hell" or that you get to use my words aganst me. Quoted:
Youve yet to catch me in a contradiction, or make some reasoned argument that my statements are incorrect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 8:23:14 AM EDT
[#36]
You guys do understand even the ACLU said everything the cop did as perfectly legal?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 8:37:01 AM EDT
[#37]
No dogs were shot in the making of that video.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 8:58:11 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys do understand even the ACLU said everything the cop did as perfectly legal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 9:05:00 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You understand that legal doesn't necessarily mean right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You guys do understand even the ACLU said everything the cop did as perfectly legal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 9:14:36 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another blow hard dispensing persuasive writing tips online. How refreshing. I make a living expressing myself, cupcake. The day i need advice from you is the day i hang up my shingle . And dont have a fit because your idiotic "so you mean (something the other person didint say, nor is it a logical extension of anything they wrote)" got smashed. Here is a pro tip. I will say what i think, you get to say what you think. Ham handed and moronic extensions of what you think my postion means, while popular with mushy headed know it alls, is a crappy debate tactic. The fourth amendment doesnt say, and has never been held to say, that if a cop has probable cause, hey must reveal it to the accused, traffic or not, nor has it been held to say that if a cop doesnt state probable cause to the accused, there is no probable cause. Its got nothing to do with, nor does it require me to address, whether an infraction should be a crime. Carry on. Edit, love the (sic) commentary. Always a sign of a rational argument. Ill let you know if i need an editor. Wait by the phone. 
As for the rest of your "rant" I hope you have a more intimidating presence in person because it's just amusing in text. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 9:17:27 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys do understand even the ACLU said everything the cop did as perfectly legal? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 9:17:31 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
8 pages and it really is that fuckin simple. The driver held all the cards and choose the path that resulted in him being cuffed and stuffed. IMO both parties were to blame. Cop should just say why he's pulling him over and dude should have given his I.D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 9:26:51 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
8 pages and some still don't realize that's not the issue. That cop went 1 to 10 real quick and it was unnecessary. People who snap like that shouldn't be "protecting" us. IMO both parties were to blame. Cop should just say why he's pulling him over and dude should have given his I.D. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
8 pages and it really is that fuckin simple. The driver held all the cards and choose the path that resulted in him being cuffed and stuffed. IMO both parties were to blame. Cop should just say why he's pulling him over and dude should have given his I.D. He went way beyond the legal requirements. Also dude knew why he was being pulled over. He ran the stop sign and then stopped in the middle of the road after he saw the cop. Happens all the time. Same with speeders hitting the brakes when they see a cop, then look down at the speedometer and claim that was their actual speed. Happens all the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 9:31:51 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yup, rol through a stop and then play "who is the bigger dickhead" with the cop, and this is what happens....... With that said, the cop was also out of line.... a simple "I observed you roll through a stop sign, and need your license to issue a citation" would have put him in the right, but he decides to go full cartman..... I hope that Sgt and Cpl got a tune up also, as they backed up a dick move, instead of deescalating & finding a peaceful solution. I aint got no time for assholes, but I got even less time for cops who abuse their authority..... I understand it to an extent, but it doesn't help them keep from looking like a gang of jackboots in situations like this. "Sure, I pulled you over for running a stop sign." at 10 seconds into the video saves a lot of heavy breathing, paperwork and unwanted scrutiny without compromising the rule of law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 9:34:23 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The cop spent several minutes requesting the DL while waiting for backup officers to arrive. He went way beyond the legal requirements. Also dude knew why he was being pulled over. He ran the stop sign and then stopped in the middle of the road after he saw the cop. Happens all the time. Same with speeders hitting the brakes when they see a cop, then look down at the speedometer and claim that was their actual speed. Happens all the time. I skimmed through 6 pages of this fucking thread and FINALLY someone mentioned it!!! 
Now that I know that.................my reaction to the rest of the video is............ 
Just give him your ID, get your ticket and move on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 9:44:22 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
8 pages and some still don't realize that's not the issue... Law: Driver's required to present ID during traffic stop. Law: LEO's required to inform the driver of the reason for the stop before leaving the scene. Feelings: LEO should tell driver the reason for the stop upon their immediate request to prevent the driver from being upset. So, literally, it's 8 pages of, "MUH FEELS!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 9:44:29 AM EDT
[#47]
This was entirely preventable by the driver.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 9:48:38 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryDamn, that's funny!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 9:49:15 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, I know that the government likes to play games and say that it is a civil action or an infraction all so that they get a lower burden of proof and you don't have a right to a lawyer. But as far as I'm concerned, if the government is coming after you in court it should be considered crime. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pulling someone over requires reasonable suspicion that they have commited, are committing, or are about to commit a crime. If there is no crime then there can be no reasonable suspicion. No reasonable suspicion means that you have been unreasonably seized. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2017 9:51:10 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope you don't have a badge, because that kind of thinking is the exact reason the ACLU and other groups have gained so much ground/support over the last 10 years or so. As much as you want to play the "cause you can doesn't mean you should" card for citizens, it also applies to LEOs. Actions do have consequences and btw not all crimes are equal. A serial rapist falls up a few flights of steps? No cares. Someone rolls through a stop sign at 5mph and ends up getting pulled out of a half opened or broken out window? Officer friendly needs to find a new career. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is there a legal requirement on the police to de-escalate people who refuse to obey the law, or is there a legal requirement for people to obey the law in the first place and de-escalate their own unlawful behavior when confronted by the police? I'll give you a hint, the former doesn't exist except in the mind of the ACLU and some idiotic department policies. The latter has been the law of the land since longer than you've been alive. If you commit a traffic violation you don't get to put conditions on when you produce your documents. You stopped being in control of the interaction when you violated the law and got pulled over. The officer doesn't owe you an explanation before you produce the documents you are required to carry when operating a vehicle. The interaction can consist entirely of "Give me your license and registration" and "Here is your ticket for xxx." Explaining the reason for the stop is just the polite thing to do, not a legal requirement, and you most certainly do not get to play the "You have to tell me what I did" game. A serial rapist falls up a few flights of steps? No cares. Someone rolls through a stop sign at 5mph and ends up getting pulled out of a half opened or broken out window? Officer friendly needs to find a new career. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
