View Full Version : Officer pulls firearm, instead of taser
platoonDaddy
04-06-19, 05:32
fat POS has hit the Kansas lottery
he affidavit in the case against Blood said she didn't realize she had shot Lewis until she looked for the Taser wires to see if they had hit their mark and realized there weren't any. She said during her interview with investigators, "I shot, shot him, I pulled my firearm instead of my Taser," the affidavit said.
Scroll to 5:55 of video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ctCi3H7WaE&feature=youtu.be
Article: https://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/483339006-Video-Kan-LEO-mistakenly-uses-gun-instead-of-TASER-at-traffic-stop/
fat POS has hit the Kansas lottery
Article: https://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/483339006-Video-Kan-LEO-mistakenly-uses-gun-instead-of-TASER-at-traffic-stop/
Fat POS, soon-to-be-rich victim of gross police negligence.
I've heard of this happening in cases where the officer carries their taser on the same side as their handgun, muscle memory and so forth....which is why nowadays I usually see cops with their tasers carried "crossdraw" on the opposite side from their guns.
I'm also not defending the suspect's decision to assault the officer but...
suspected seatbelt violation
Seatbelt "violations" as a primary offense are absolute crap.
In my state they had the "click-it or ticket" campaign. Originally you could be ticketed for failure to use a seatbelt if you were pulled over for something else first. Later the State decided that LEOs could pull people over purely for not being buckled up.
Jeezus.
There is really no excuse for this level of competence. Read that IN-competence.
fat POS has hit the Kansas lottery
Scroll to 5:55 of video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ctCi3H7WaE&feature=youtu.be
Article: https://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/483339006-Video-Kan-LEO-mistakenly-uses-gun-instead-of-TASER-at-traffic-stop/
I feel bad for the officer, a terrible mistake under stress. Not following the orders of a police officer, resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer and getting shot as a result will unfortunately make him a millionaire in a court stacked with the FSA. Hell he may even run for office next year or get a show on MSNBC.
He put a little soul in that "Aaahhh!"
meh dont swing on police, dont get shot
joedirt199
04-06-19, 07:10
Our tasers are meant to be drawn with the support hand so this doesn't happen.
Another case of comply and life would be much easier. Stupid people get what they deserve, just sucks that an officer's life is ruined in the process.
If she had meant to shoot him she probably wouldn't be in any trouble. Perp body slammed the officer, is beating him on the ground, punching him in his head and could have easily disarmed him. Smaller, weaker female just saw all this and could verbalize it all and she probably wouldn't even been second guessed.
Averageman
04-06-19, 08:53
Seatbelt "violations" as a primary offense are absolute crap.
In my state they had the "click-it or ticket" campaign. Originally you could be ticketed for failure to use a seatbelt if you were pulled over for something else first. Later the State decided that LEOs could pull people over purely for not being buckled up.
Ironically it is my choice to wear or not to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle and yet we have "Click it or Ticket" here.
It's simply a revenue source and it should be repealed.
diving dave
04-06-19, 09:13
Lack of training, pure and simple. My old Dept had a policy the taser must be on the opposite side of the handgun, yet many still set it up to cross draw with the gun hand. I always trained to draw and fire the the taser left handed.
Ironically it is my choice to wear or not to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle and yet we have "Click it or Ticket" here.
It's simply a revenue source and it should be repealed.
Yep, so while the dumb asshole who got shot in the video wouldn't have gotten shot had he not been a dumb asshole, and the rookie girl cop wouldn't have shot him had she not been negligent/poorly trained or whatever...the traffic stop wouldn't have happened the first place had stupid revenue grab-based laws not been in effect.
I sometimes go right back to the "original sin" in situations like this.
Ironically it is my choice to wear or not to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle and yet we have "Click it or Ticket" here.
It's simply a revenue source and it should be repealed.
It’s just another revenue source, i.e. selective tax.
dude of course had to pull his your not pulling over whites idiocy ?
to bad the shot was not fatal !!!! guy was a piece of garbage anyway
and yeah she was a idiot cop ? no idea had to hire a women ? did she have a complex ? who knows who cares cause that to me looked like bad training as the base NOW if she has prior issues with being a tough cop ? then its the perfect storm I reckon and sure she feared big dude getting the upper hand on the other cause he was kinda dominating for a bit
if I was on the jury I might side with the cops on this one :)
anytime someone over a belt ticket gets out and fights a cop that means they are OK to kill you that is how I see a fight against a LEO because I have seen that end result happen more than once sadly
stand up for your rights !
but comply with laws that control our privileges ! fight those other ways not physical !
dwhitehorne
04-06-19, 10:13
Our tasers are meant to be drawn with the support hand so this doesn't happen.
.
Been a Taser Instructor for 8 years and have never been taught this by Taser. I have seen video of departments that do this. Most of use the cross draw. People do strange things under stress. David
joedirt199
04-06-19, 10:31
Yeah they bought us support hand holsters so you can't mount it on your belt to be drawn strong hand. Also to leave your strong hand open incase you need to draw the fiream. They made our policy so strict on tasers, there is no reason to even carry it.
The majority of the police shootings always start with the public taking a stand against the officer on principle.
ramairthree
04-06-19, 11:32
1- F these stupid laws. If you are driving safe, there should not be BS laws with primary stops for open container, no seatbelt, etc. if they are unsafe, whatever, pull them over for that. People are driving around on motorcycles, using the road on bicycles, and in classic cars without seatbelts. Quit being assholes about shit like this. If no street LEOs enforce stuff like this at all, they can’t replace all of you. Sure, the LEO in the video was professional and courteous, but the end message is going to be shooting people in the streets over not wearing a seatbelt.
2- don’t be a total dumbass and get in a fight with LE over said stupid laws. If you want to be a caricature of a stereotype of being stupid with no impulse control and an inability to act like a civilized human, do it on private property and not the public roadway. They can’t make enough movies like Save the Last Dance or Finding Forrester to make up for incidents like this. Quit being dumbasses and jacking stuff up. Thousands of people from the whitest states in the country just decided to get their concealed carry after this video because of those scary, out of control black people.
3- if you plug someone with your partner as a backstop, when you meant to tase them, it goes without saying you are too stupid to say the perp was on top of your partner pummeling his head into the pavement and you took a risky shot to save his life. The public perception of the average IQ of LE is not that good, but much of the public thinks only you and the military should have firearms because of your training. Then you go and pull your pistol instead of a taser. Then when it could have been a good shoot scenario, jack that up.
The video could not have been better propaganda for BS government overreach laws, dumb LEOs, and minority unfavorable stereotypes if it tried.
Thank god it wasn’t an on call neurosurgeon in a rush to get to the hospital to save some kid that fell out of a tree on their head.
“Child dies while neurosurgeon delayed for not wearing his seatbelt and being black” if they were compliant,
Or
“Black Neurosurgeon short while trying to rush to hospital and save child for not wearing seatbelt”
Lol but he wasnt a black neurosurgeon
Just take it up in court
You are swinging on people who already have weapons. What did he think was gonna happen?
The officer was just gonna accept that ass whipping?
I always liked Ron White’s observation on the subject ... “I didn’t know how many guys it was gonna take to whip my ass, but I knew how many they were going to use...”.
ramairthree
04-06-19, 13:59
Lol but he wasnt a black neurosurgeon
Just take it up in court
You are swinging on people who already have weapons. What did he think was gonna happen?
The officer was just gonna accept that ass whipping?
Oh I am for sure not saying he was not a dumbass.
That seat belt law is stupid,
The dude throwing down over a seat belt stop is stupid,
And McTaser, I mean Dirty Tasey was stupid.
I remember the last time this happened, of course in that incident the guy was cuffed and in the back seat before the female deputy shot him TWICE with her Glock and then blamed taser because the taser looked too much like a Glock.
I agree with seatbelt laws being dumb
but still lol
Guy sounds like he had a good tase ring coming his way.
Being shot was total negligence all the way up to her signed off on her training saying she was competent.
She should have never been a police officer.
And all because of a seat belt ticket. What BS clickit or ticket is just more theft. What does it matter if someone wares a seat belt. Who are the police and politicians to say a person has to ware a seat belt.
I hope she only makes minimum wage doing manual labor the rest of her life.
I’d say he deserves something, probably a good tasering. But instead he got shot, he should get some money for that. Dirt bag or not. However it should come out of the police pension fund. Not from tax payers.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-06-19, 17:17
The guy is belligerent and not following orders for a long time. As soon as you try to remove him from the car and he resists, why not just OC his ass?
The good news is that any money that asshole wins in a lawsuit is going to end up back in the community faster than you can say Cheap whores, expensive liquor , and lottery tickets.
3- if you plug someone with your partner as a backstop, when you meant to tase them, it goes without saying you are too stupid to say the perp was on top of your partner pummeling his head into the pavement and you took a risky shot to save his life.
I am amazed she did not kill her partner in the process. That was just crazy to watch.
Always glad to learn from the use-of-force experts on the forum.
There are a couple of things I noticed:
1) she crawled right into the car after her partner did (not necessarily the best thing for two guns to be rasslin' with a suspect, but showed spirit);
2) when the guy came out of the car with the officer, she was also right out of the car and beating feet around the car to back him up;
3) she didn't hesitate when she saw the officer down, she drew - called TASER, TASER (I heard it twice) and then shot;
4) even after she has just discharged her firearm when she meant to use her TASER, she holstered and helped handcuff the guy (again not classic contact/cover tactics, but shows spirit).
To me, this was clearly a slip and capture error, not a fear bite. In addition, the situation that Officer Blood approached on the other side of the car was one in which may have very well justified lethal force at that point, apparently someone else agrees:
Case dismissed against ex-Lawrence police officer who shot man during traffic stop
A judge has dismissed the case against a former Lawrence police officer who shot a man during a traffic stop last year and was charged with reckless aggravated battery.
The officer who fired the shot, Brindley Blood, was charged in Douglas County District Court. Blood had maintained the May 29 shooting was accidental and she meant to reach for her stun gun instead of her firearm.
A news release from county prosecutor’s office Wednesday said a judge dismissed the case.
An order signed by Douglas County District Court Judge Peggy Kittel said Blood would not stand trial on the criminal charge after the court considered evidence heard in a preliminary hearing last week.
The judge ruled that the evidence presented didn’t show probable cause that the officer acted recklessly.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article228509349.html#storylink=cpy
There have been several higher-profile slip and capture error cases involving TASERS in the last couple years. All you budding use-of-force expert witnesses need to plus up on the phenomenon.
The TASER course is woefully inadequate IMHO. It is geared primarily to reduce TASER's liability from use of the TASER devices, and does very little to instill tactical competency in the TASER's actual usage. Unfortunately, most agencies feel they are covered by the manufacturers courses (same is true of Less-Lethal projectiles and OC) and don't do any additional training. Our 8 hour TASER Tactics Course never got off the ground, largely IMO because agencies said, 'wait, we recertify them when the company says so.'
I'm sure the Lawrence trainers diligently followed the course curriculum set out by TASER, but the fact is that course doesn't require sufficient draws and activations over a long enough period of time to develop enough neural imprinting to over ride the pistol draw stroke movement. It would be interesting to see the video slowed and enhanced to see if Officer Blood also made a motion to sweep the safety off as she brought the Glock into position to fire.
BTW: She wasn't fired, she resigned.
Wow ... that’s bad.
I could never do their job. I’d go nuts.
I think seatbelt tickets are BS but then again I’d never go body on a policeman. It’s basically a death wish.
I wonder if the driver had suspended license, probation, no insurance, and/or warrant.
The_War_Wagon
04-06-19, 19:29
I'd like it to be one of those decisions, where the judge recognizes that the cop was in the wrong with the shooting, but since the driver brought it on himself, damages awarded shall be: ONE dollar. :D
I'd like it to be one of those decisions, where the judge recognizes that the cop was in the wrong with the shooting, but since the driver brought it on himself, damages awarded shall be: ONE dollar. :D
I would like the judge to make him pay his ticket and tell him that if he wasn't acting like a dumbass he wouldn't have gotten shot.
I've gotten pulled over for b.s. stops - I was pissed but polite and got warnings and went about my day, except for the time I innocently (I swear to God) asked a Cullman Al police officer if he got out of the Army on an overweight discharge whole he was telling my buddy and I about his time in the service . In my defense, I was young, he was a big ol' boy, and the stop sign he ticketed me for was literally hidden behind a tree. Unlike Ron White, I wasn't really curious how many redneck cops it would take to whoop my ass so I smiled, wished fat boy a good night, and headed on down the road.
Andy
Moose-Knuckle
04-07-19, 05:48
@ 7:10 you can see the suspect clearly body slam the male officer to the pavement, fall on top of him, and hammer fist his skull into the pavement.
The officer is wearing a sidearm.
If I was on her grand jury I wouldn't have an issue with the female officer's actions.
YMMV.
File this under stupid laws + stupid people who want to assault armed enforcers of said stupid laws = winning stupid prizes.
I wonder if the driver had suspended license, probation, no insurance, and/or warrant.
Yeah when I heard the suspect say; "I axed him to see a soup-O-visor" I was thinking he must have been ride'n dirty.
This right here is it:
I would like the judge to make him pay his ticket and tell him that if he wasn't acting like a dumbass he wouldn't have gotten shot.
Sure she made a mistake but she wasn't backing down from backing her partner up. And all the dude had to do was be polite and fight it later. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...
Sadly that guy is still voting and being a drain on the economy....
Averageman
04-07-19, 08:28
I would agree the guy was acting pretty hinky and likely had something to hide,
But, was all of this, over a BS seatbelt law really worth it?
They were running pretty close to having one Officer shoot another Officer over (as far as we know) a humbug no seatbelt law.
Here's the thing, if an Officer is going to put his life on the line, it ought to be worth a bit more than this example.
I would agree the guy was acting pretty hinky and likely had something to hide,
But, was all of this, over a BS seatbelt law really worth it?
They were running pretty close to having one Officer shoot another Officer over (as far as we know) a humbug no seatbelt law.
Here's the thing, if an Officer is going to put his life on the line, it ought to be worth a bit more than this example.
He didn't pull the perp over because of the seatbelt law, the seatbelt law allowed him to stop a suspicious car without a warrant or probable cause. Probably suspected the perp was riding dirty, had a warrant, suspended license, etc.
Averageman
04-07-19, 11:00
That would be pretty hard to justify in court.
I suspected him of what?
I suspected him why?
Were the plates on the car a match to the vehicle?
Was the vehicle reported stolen?
Or was it just an excuse to write a ticket and generate some revenue?
All of that matters because otherwise you're on
some thin ice and someone is going to holler "Driving while Black."
None of that matters. At the bottom line, a police officer thought she was using less-than-lethal force and mistakenly used lethal force. The stupidity of seat belt laws, the stupidity of the perp’s decision to assault a police officer, and his race are merely side issues. The issue is that we have (had) a police officer sworn to serve and protect the public who was so poorly trained that could make that kind of utterly fundamental mistake.
BoringGuy45
04-07-19, 12:48
He didn't pull the perp over because of the seatbelt law, the seatbelt law allowed him to stop a suspicious car without a warrant or probable cause. Probably suspected the perp was riding dirty, had a warrant, suspended license, etc.
And he almost definitely did. At just about every traffic stop I either initiated or assisted with, everyone who refused to cooperate was hiding something, whether it was a drugs, a warrant, or a suspended license. Anyone willing to fight a cop usually knows that the cop is about to find something that'll lead to more than a ticket. Most people who are clean aside from the traffic violation just want to get their ticket (or, hopefully, warning) and be on their way.
He didn't pull the perp over because of the seatbelt law, the seatbelt law allowed him to stop a suspicious car without a warrant or probable cause. Probably suspected the perp was riding dirty, had a warrant, suspended license, etc.
So an officer in an extremely anti 2nd Amendment such as Maryland could use the seatbelt law to pull over a driver with a BCM sticker, plates from a fun friendly state, and similar.
So an officer in an extremely anti 2nd Amendment such as Maryland could use the seatbelt law to pull over a driver with a BCM sticker, plates from a fun friendly state, and similar.
IF you were breaking that law of no seatbelt then they could :)
do not break the law they cant well they can but if you can prove otherwise :)
So an officer in an extremely anti 2nd Amendment such as Maryland could use the seatbelt law to pull over a driver with a BCM sticker, plates from a fun friendly state, and similar.
You could just wear your seatbelt.
I think tint laws are more intrusive.
IF you were breaking that law of no seatbelt then they could :)
do not break the law they cant well they can but if you can prove otherwise :)
You could just wear your seatbelt.
So an officer can't just claim they thought they didn't see a seat belt in use?
Lap belt/no belt only vehicles? How about those? What ideas do you have in those instances where the officer is looking for firearms and furtive movements?
How about just lobby to do away with it since there isn't an issue with whole bus loads of people (young to old) getting drove around sans seat belts?
So an officer can't just claim they thought they didn't see a seat belt in use?
I guarantee you will never find my name as a sponsor or on a petition asking for seatbelt laws. Don't shoot the messenger.
I guarantee you will never find my name as a sponsor or on a petition asking for seatbelt laws. Don't shoot the messenger.
You said all anyone has to do is wear their seat belt to avoid the problem. Vehicles manufactured with lap belt only or no belt meets legal requirements. Doesn't work till pulled over though and nothing suffices with someone wanting to go on a fishing trip which I have always assumed plays a major role in the adoption of seat belt laws.
m1a_scoutguy
04-07-19, 18:06
Lots of WRONGS in this encounter starting with not wearing your seatbelt! The cop did the biggest wrong BUT like the other officer said hand me your license and insurance info and you would be on your way! Sooooo with that said here is my thought on the whole thing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFJvZtgyXRE Stupid actions get stupid results. :rolleyes: Warning,swearing in video for those concerned with that.
No desire to debate seat belt laws. Cops don't bother many folks who don't act skeevy. A bored cop may pull you over just because - deal with it. I don't want to be a policeman, and I am pretty thankful for the folks that are.
No desire to debate seat belt laws. Cops don't bother many folks who don't act skeevy. A bored cop may pull you over just because - deal with it. I don't want to be a policeman, and I am pretty thankful for the folks that are.
So not many? What is your thresh hold where it becomes too many?
I don't really have any interest in getting pulled over so someone won't be bored. Really a shame that there isn't a sticker or patch that people who do support that behavior could put on their person or property as an open invitation since both parties would like it and tax payers wouldn't be on the hook for a settlement.
So not many? What is your thresh hold where it becomes too many?
I don't really have any interest in getting pulled over so someone won't be bored. Really a shame that there isn't a sticker or patch that people who do support that behavior could put on their person or property as an open invitation since both parties would like it and tax payers wouldn't be on the hook for a settlement.
I dunno why you have such a hardon for me, but I'm already spoken for.
titsonritz
04-07-19, 22:32
Lots of WRONGS in this encounter starting with not wearing your seatbelt! The cop did the biggest wrong BUT like the other officer said hand me your license and insurance info and you would be on your way! Sooooo with that said here is my thought on the whole thing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFJvZtgyXRE Stupid actions get stupid results. :rolleyes: Warning,swearing in video for those concerned with that.
Lots of truth in that video.
File this under stupid laws + stupid people who want to assault armed enforcers of said stupid laws = winning stupid prizes.
I'm gonna remember you said this when they start kicking in doors and confiscating guns after they pass a nationwide ban.
Averageman
04-08-19, 09:08
No desire to debate seat belt laws. Cops don't bother many folks who don't act skeevy. A bored cop may pull you over just because - deal with it. I don't want to be a policeman, and I am pretty thankful for the folks that are.
So not many? What is your thresh hold where it becomes too many?
I don't really have any interest in getting pulled over so someone won't be bored. Really a shame that there isn't a sticker or patch that people who do support that behavior could put on their person or property as an open invitation since both parties would like it and tax payers wouldn't be on the hook for a settlement.
I think it is important to debate seatbelt laws because as I said earlier, your Officer pulls the guy over for not wearing his seatbelt and in the meantime I pass the scene while riding a motorcycle without a helmet or a seatbelt and I'm fine.
We both pay taxes for the roadways, we both require licensing and insurance, but I get to make choices about seatbelts and he doesn't?
That's humbug and if you're using a seatbelt violation to perform a fishing expedition because someone looks "Hinky" define Hinky for me because although I'm not an Attorney, but that's would be a pretty broad term that is open for abuse.
A "Bored Cop" pulling you over just because he's bored clearly violates the Constitutional rights we have here in the United States.
Now lets go really hog wild and say a "Bored Cop" has a feeling someone is "Hinky", see how that could go wrong?
So lets add in one other factor to Bored Cop, feeling someone is hinky and a possibleseatbelt violation, lets add in a Partner who pulls her pistol instead of her taser and then uses her Senior Partner as a back stop as She shoots a guy who was five minutes ago on his way to work.
So I would say, if you're using these stops to drum up revenue, go on a fishing expedition or because you think someone looks "Hinky" you're eventually going to have a remarkably bad day because you act like that.
That bad day might be when you are embarrassed in court or when you're found guilty of violating someones Constitutional rights or when you go hands on with someone because they just got tired of Cops deciding once too often that they look "Hinky".
You're right, had he just handed over his documents and been on his way this never would have happened, but then had the Cop used some discretion and not pulled him over for something as straight up asinine as a possible seatbelt violation, it wouldn't have happened either.
If you want me to "Back the Blue" how about lets support a lot more "Protect and Serve" as opposed to some crazy Sheriff of Nottingham tactics to drum up some tax revenue.
I'm gonna remember you said this when they start kicking in doors and confiscating guns after they pass a nationwide ban.
A nationwide ban with confiscation in this country would be a huge undertaking and is highly unlikely for at least the term of the current Supreme Court.
Averageman
04-08-19, 09:33
A nationwide mandatory Healthcare insurance being required by law in this country would be a huge undertaking and is highly unlikely for at least the term of the current Supreme Court.
Fixed it for you. See how that worked out for us?
I think it is important to debate seatbelt laws because as I said earlier, your Officer pulls the guy over for not wearing his seatbelt and in the meantime I pass the scene while riding a motorcycle without a helmet or a seatbelt and I'm fine.
If you want me to "Back the Blue" how about lets support a lot more "Protect and Serve" as opposed to some crazy Sheriff of Nottingham tactics to drum up some tax revenue.
The motorcycle helmet analogy has some merits but also some flaws. There are significantly fewer motorcycles on the road than other vehicles. Most motorcycles are capable of carrying rider and one passenger, whereas common vehicles are capable of driver and four passengers. According to NHTSA helmets are over 33% effective in reducing fatalities for the operator and 40% for passengers. Another consideration is that helmets reduce injury/fatality due to head injury. Other than head injuries, which in one study accounted for 56% of fatalities, there are many other causes of death in motorcycle fatalities, blunt trauma to the chest and abdomen leading them.
Seat belts, on the other hand, protect the occupant from numerous mechanisms of injury. NHTSA rated their effectiveness at reducing fatalities at 45%. I've helped extricate folks from hellacious crashes who survived because they were wearing their seatbelts.
Quite frankly, I think folks are fools if they don't wear seat belts while in a vehicle, or helmets while riding. Especially if they spend a great deal of time preparing to protect themselves from more statistically unlikely events, such as gunfights.
As far as seatbelt tickets being a revenue stream, in my state, Kansas, seat belt violations carry a fine and reduced/no court costs. I believe the current fine is $30.00.
I do agree that in many cases officers use seat belt violations as PC for pretextual stops, stops where enforcement of the violation which authorized the stop is not the primary purpose of the stop. The Supreme Court has several times ruled pretextual stops are legal, regardless of the underlying purpose, so long as there was a violation to warrant the stop.
One way to combat the practice is to bug your legislators to change your state's seat belt laws, making not wearing your seat belt a secondary violation, rather than a primary violation which an officer can stop you for.
Or, vote Democrat for enough election cycles for them to really stack the courts with liberal judges.
Fixed it for you. See how that worked out for us?
You think healthcare and firearms possession are the same things as viewed by the current Supreme Court?
.
Averageman
04-08-19, 10:35
You think healthcare and firearms possession are the same things as viewed by the current Supreme Court?
.
Before Kavanaugh, yes. I do think they saw the legalities of the Affordable Care Act along with it's penalties as a right the government had to impose this tax on American Citizens.
There has been some speculation in print that Roberts made this decision based upon what he felt was the need to show himself as unbiased and as reaching out to the more liberal Judges on the SCOTUS. If that is true it should scare the hell out of you.
I would suppose the Second Amendment is looked upon as fluid and capable of being changed as the times change and there are many examples of how they have done exactly that over the years. We have seen, as the "Bumpstock" ban shows, rather than take a stand on the Constitutional legalities of certain parts of the Second Amendment, they simply take a pass.
So what happens in the future, if for some reason the Court rules in favor of some issue that favors Conservative ideals over the progressive socialists ideals? Will the next issue be concerning the Second Amendment and will Roberts again feel the need to reach across the bench and give the progressive socialists a win?
That should really be concerning to you.
You think healthcare and firearms possession are the same things as viewed by the current Supreme Court?
.
Usually the safest bet to place in that venue is for the current Dred Scott or Fred Korematsu to end up losing
Averageman
04-08-19, 11:00
The motorcycle helmet analogy has some merits but also some flaws. There are significantly fewer motorcycles on the road than other vehicles. Most motorcycles are capable of carrying rider and one passenger, whereas common vehicles are capable of driver and four passengers. According to NHTSA helmets are over 33% effective in reducing fatalities for the operator and 40% for passengers. Another consideration is that helmets reduce injury/fatality due to head injury. Other than head injuries, which in one study accounted for 56% of fatalities, there are many other causes of death in motorcycle fatalities, blunt trauma to the chest and abdomen leading them.
Seat belts, on the other hand, protect the occupant from numerous mechanisms of injury. NHTSA rated their effectiveness at reducing fatalities at 45%. I've helped extricate folks from hellacious crashes who survived because they were wearing their seatbelts.
Quite frankly, I think folks are fools if they don't wear seat belts while in a vehicle, or helmets while riding. Especially if they spend a great deal of time preparing to protect themselves from more statistically unlikely events, such as gunfights.
True and I would agree with you, however everyday people jump out of airplanes, smoke cigarettes, climb mountains, sit in your recliner and drink a half gallon of cheap vodka, handle poisonous snakes and as the video shows ride around in a Cruiser with an untrained partner who is just as likely to shoot you as the Perp who's kicking your butt.
You can almost take as many stupid chances as you want and do many, many dangerous things, but if you're sober, on your way to work, obeying all other laws and minding your business, you better be wearing your seatbelt.
As far as seatbelt tickets being a revenue stream, in my state, Kansas, seat belt violations carry a fine and reduced/no court costs. I believe the current fine is $30.00.
The fine can be as high as $250.00 here in Texas and often is.
I do agree that in many cases officers use seat belt violations as PC for pretextual stops, stops where enforcement of the violation which authorized the stop is not the primary purpose of the stop. The Supreme Court has several times ruled pretextual stops are legal, regardless of the underlying purpose, so long as there was a violation to warrant the stop.
Same thing with a tail light being out, it's a dandy way to pull someone out of their car and do what is basically a field sobriety test.
Having had to submit to this in my own damned driveway, I'm not a real fan of these things being used to "Fish" for other violations.
One way to combat the practice is to bug your legislators to change your state's seat belt laws, making not wearing your seat belt a secondary violation, rather than a primary violation which an officer can stop you for.
That's highly unlikely, these petty former suggestions that have now become Laws are simply too convenient and lucrative to ever be changed.
I'm all about obeying the law and yes as annoying as it is, I wear a helmet on my motorcycle and a seatbelt in my car, not because these things might be laws, but because it's common sense to me.
It's just annoying to me, on the very few occasions it has happened to me, to be the subject of a LEO's fishing expedition. Even more than that though it doesn't do any good for public relations between the general public and Law Enforcement.
Lot's of noise to signal in this post.
However inane the laws are, that is a legislative issue of broader perspective likely to do with child safety & government incurred health cost of the uninsured, the time suck of getting pulled over doesn't warrant anyone to violence.
My take after participating in, witnessing, or attempting to repair as a first responder hundreds of instances of violence.
The initial officer that got grappled was face down in a position of tremendous disadvantage, being hit from the top rear in a way he could not defend against, with face inches off the pavement. Another blow to his head/neck could easily kill or permanently disable him. People are killed and paralyzed via blunt force strikes quite frequently. The pavement presenting a countercoup surface greatly increases the likelihood. Additionally, the officer underneath the suspect could easily have had his service weapon used against him, the other officer, and the public within a 1/4 to 1/2 second.
There is a fair argument that a Taser would have been the wrong decision. In my, and many others, experience they are not a reliable and repeatable means of stopping someone fast. If you have a time & distance, likely numerical, advantage it can be useful as a step in escalation of force. But perhaps not the right choice here with a very bad outcome to the disadvantaged officer possible inside of a second. A small physically weak officer who cannot or will not effectively intervein physically also, obviously, limits use of force options. Policy may also prevent less than lethal (intended) kinetic blows via baton or boot.
If that police department authorizes deadly force against imminent death or bodily harm, against imminent harm as most PD policy does, I would imagine deadly force intervention is justified.
More signal/noise. Whatever the circumstances or laws...she accidentally shot him when she meant to use a Taser, risking the perp's death and her partner's. Sheesh.
.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
04-08-19, 11:20
I'm all about obeying the law and yes as annoying as it is, I wear a helmet on my motorcycle and a seatbelt in my car, not because these things might be laws, but because it's common sense to me.
It's just annoying to me, on the very few occasions it has happened to me, to be the subject of a LEO's fishing expedition. Even more than that though it doesn't do any good for public relations between the general public and Law Enforcement.
I'm sorry that you have experienced "fishing expeditions." I am having a hard time trying to figure out what these fishing expeditions are though.
-Traffic violation happens.
-Officer conducts completely legal and reasonable traffic stop on vehicle
-Officer runs clearance on driver, who comes back without warrants and with valid drivers license. Vehicle is registered and insured.
-Officer, having no PC to search vehicle, now may ask to search your vehicle, or has to let you go on your way.
How is this different than any other traffic stop? How do you know the officer was on a "fishing expedition" and not just pulling traffic. There are a few different types of cops, some pull traffic for interdiction, some pull traffic because they like pulling traffic and believe in traffic safety measures. The latter does not go on "fishing expeditions", but may ask to search a car if they feel something is hinky. How do you which one you are dealing with?
Bad guys drive cars. More felony arrests are made off of traffic stops than any other contact. Traffic stops are a necessity to public safety as they facilitate the removal of dangerous felons off the street, as well as help (slightly) curb the flow of dangerous driving.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
04-08-19, 11:23
More signal/noise. Whatever the circumstances or laws...she accidentally shot him when she meant to use a Taser, risking the perp's death and her partner's. Sheesh.
.
I say, let the courts decide her fate. The scumbag got a nasty surprise for sure, one that may or may not have been justified (lets ask a jury). I do know one thing, she did not "knowingly or with intent" use deadly force. She intended to use a less lethal device, but instead put countless lives in danger. Thank god it was at the angle it was, and not through badguy and into anyone else.
I think she is 100% guilty of reckless endangerment....
I say, let the courts decide her fate. The scumbag got a nasty surprise for sure, one that may or may not have been justified (lets ask a jury). I do know one thing, she did not "knowingly or with intent" use deadly force. She intended to use a less lethal device, but instead put countless lives in danger. Thank god it was at the angle it was, and not through badguy and into anyone else.
I think she is 100% guilty of reckless endangerment....
Judge already dismissed.
A bit surprised she resigned and do wonder if she will get on with another agency.
Averageman
04-08-19, 12:00
I'm sorry that you have experienced "fishing expeditions." I am having a hard time trying to figure out what these fishing expeditions are though.
-Traffic violation happens.
-Officer conducts completely legal and reasonable traffic stop on vehicle
-Officer runs clearance on driver, who comes back without warrants and with valid drivers license. Vehicle is registered and insured.
-Officer, having no PC to search vehicle, now may ask to search your vehicle, or has to let you go on your way.
How is this different than any other traffic stop? How do you know the officer was on a "fishing expedition" and not just pulling traffic. There are a few different types of cops, some pull traffic for interdiction, some pull traffic because they like pulling traffic and believe in traffic safety measures. The latter does not go on "fishing expeditions", but may ask to search a car if they feel something is hinky. How do you which one you are dealing with?
Bad guys drive cars. More felony arrests are made off of traffic stops than any other contact. Traffic stops are a necessity to public safety as they facilitate the removal of dangerous felons off the street, as well as help (slightly) curb the flow of dangerous driving.
If you don't understand what a fishing expedition is then you clearly haven't been the subject of one, yet.
So you have a tai light out and you get followed until you're in your just about in your driveway. As you hit the garage door opener, the lights come on and the siren gets a blip to gain your attention.
You get out your car with your groceries and the fishing begins.
Suddenly a tail light turns in to "I smell alcohol" in the meantime the other Cop is suddenly interested in your three motorcycles in your garage.
Really all she needed to do was let me know I had a tail light out and the other Cop should be paying attention to me rather than my motorcycles.
I genuinely support Law Enforcement, but using BS excuses and accusing me of drinking and driving in front of my house and family is not a good way to win friends and influence people.
I actually changed the tail light before the ticket was completed.
15,000-20,000 people living in this town, there are better ways to handle things.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
04-08-19, 12:16
If you don't understand what a fishing expedition is then you clearly haven't been the subject of one, yet.
So you have a tai light out and you get followed until you're in your just about in your driveway. As you hit the garage door opener, the lights come on and the siren gets a blip to gain your attention.
You get out your car with your groceries and the fishing begins.
Suddenly a tail light turns in to "I smell alcohol" in the meantime the other Cop is suddenly interested in your three motorcycles in your garage.
Really all she needed to do was let me know I had a tail light out and the other Cop should be paying attention to me rather than my motorcycles.
I genuinely support Law Enforcement, but using BS excuses and accusing me of drinking and driving in front of my house and family is not a good way to win friends and influence people.
I actually changed the tail light before the ticket was completed.
15,000-20,000 people living in this town, there are better ways to handle things.
And how many DUI's have been charged and convicted based off of an initial tail light violation? Answer: thousands.
I have made many routine stops where, during the contact, I found some signs of intoxication. Through investigation, or what you call a "fishing expedition", I was able to determine that the crime of DUI was not committed.
Again, I am sorry you had a negative experience. Had your tail light not been out, you would not have had that contact in the first place.
It is important to know your rights AND assert them. I am not quite sure what you mean by the motorcycles reference, but I would certainly tell any officer who stopped me in my driveway that he was not welcome to enter my garage, unless of course I had pulled into my garage and that was where the traffic stop was taking place.
Sometime innocent people get investigated. That is the point of investigation, to find the fact of the matter. It is unfortunate, and we try to minimize it as best we can. Would you rather the police in your town not conduct DUI investigations, so as not to (very rarely) ask someone who had not been drinking if they had been?
Averageman
04-08-19, 12:38
And how many DUI's have been charged and convicted based off of an initial tail light violation? Answer: thousands.
I have made many routine stops where, during the contact, I found some signs of intoxication. Through investigation, or what you call a "fishing expedition", I was able to determine that the crime of DUI was not committed.
Again, I am sorry you had a negative experience. Had your tail light not been out, you would not have had that contact in the first place.
It is important to know your rights AND assert them. I am not quite sure what you mean by the motorcycles reference, but I would certainly tell any officer who stopped me in my driveway that he was not welcome to enter my garage, unless of course I had pulled into my garage and that was where the traffic stop was taking place.
Sometime innocent people get investigated. That is the point of investigation, to find the fact of the matter. It is unfortunate, and we try to minimize it as best we can. Would you rather the police in your town not conduct DUI investigations, so as not to (very rarely) ask someone who had not been drinking if they had been?
You do understand a light bulb can go out at any time and it's really not a big deal. You can check your lights and five minutes later the light goes out, that's just how that works.
The bulb can be replaced in five minutes or less and if you tell someone that it's out and they have one available, why write the ticket?
Why tell someone who hasn't had a drink in a week that you smell alcohol? Is it because the Officer smelled alcohol or is it more likely because it was 0500 and the Officer thought I was coming home from a bar?
Of course I'm not a Cop, I wont understand the necessity of acting like that in order to "Go Fishing" in order to write a bigger and better ticket.
I tell people I see driving with a tail light out that they have a tail light out and if they choose to ride without a seat belt, I figure it is their business. That's what good people do and it's also the difference between being a Good Citizen, a Peace Officer and a Law Enforcement Officer.
But you keep pulling people over and generating revenue for the folks you work for, I'm sure you're good at it.
Speaking from experience, no tail light has to be out to get pulled over for that claim. Not sure what the officer was looking for and nothing came of it. I am not sure if that was what the driver pulled over just ahead of us was told in about the same amount of time or not.
I'm all about obeying the law and yes as annoying as it is, I wear a helmet on my motorcycle and a seatbelt in my car, not because these things might be laws, but because it's common sense to me.
It's just annoying to me, on the very few occasions it has happened to me, to be the subject of a LEO's fishing expedition. Even more than that though it doesn't do any good for public relations between the general public and Law Enforcement.
Perhaps if you posted a picture of yourself, and you vehicle, and maybe a brief video, shot from a following vehicle, of your vehicle in motion, I could shed some light on why you are the victim of such fishing expeditions. ;)
I posted this: Quite frankly, I think folks are fools if they don't wear seat belts while in a vehicle, or helmets while riding. Especially if they spend a great deal of time preparing to protect themselves from more statistically unlikely events, such as gunfights.
I don't really see the relevance your statement:
True and I would agree with you, however everyday people jump out of airplanes, smoke cigarettes, climb mountains, sit in your recliner and drink a half gallon of cheap vodka, handle poisonous snakes....You can almost take as many stupid chances as you want and do many, many dangerous things, but if you're sober, on your way to work, obeying all other laws and minding your business, you better be wearing your seatbelt.
has to my statement.
Are you saying the state has no legitimate interest in reducing traffic fatalities by requiring one of the simplest safety precautions possible?
Quite frankly, I find it amusing that some folks get all dressed up in their leather costumes to ride their motorcycles, 'in case I have to slide' but don't wear helmets. Likewise, I think smokers are fools who succumbed to peer pressure at one point and are now addicted to nicotine, are to be pitied. It was sad, yet somewhat amusing, to watch my BIL's family members excuse themselves to go have a smoke as my BIL, their brother, uncle, son, lay dying of lung cancer. I also pity folks who have drinking problems.
I also disagree with this: and as the video shows ride around in a Cruiser with an untrained partner who is just as likely to shoot you as the Perp who's kicking your butt for reasons that I have stated previously.
Averageman
04-08-19, 14:03
Perhaps if you posted a picture of yourself, and you vehicle, and maybe a brief video, shot from a following vehicle, of your vehicle in motion, I could shed some light on why you are the victim of such fishing expeditions. ;)
What would my driving habits have to do with getting pulled over for
A) a tail light being out.
B) Having a plastic cover over my rear licence plate to keep the plate clean and visible?
I posted this: Quite frankly, I think folks are fools if they don't wear seat belts while in a vehicle, or helmets while riding. Especially if they spend a great deal of time preparing to protect themselves from more statistically unlikely events, such as gunfights.
I don't really see the relevance your statement:
True and I would agree with you, however everyday people jump out of airplanes, smoke cigarettes, climb mountains, sit in your recliner and drink a half gallon of cheap vodka, handle poisonous snakes....You can almost take as many stupid chances as you want and do many, many dangerous things, but if you're sober, on your way to work, obeying all other laws and minding your business, you better be wearing your seatbelt.
The relevance is that you can and should be able to do any dumb and dangerous thing you choose to do, that is right up and to the point where the .gov creates a fine for a victim less crime. Then you better show your documents be humble and bend over and grab your ankles.
Please don't try and tell me you're fining me for not wearing a seat belt for my own safety and in the meantime all of those other activities are perfectly legal.
has to my statement.
Are you saying the state has no legitimate interest in reducing traffic fatalities by requiring one of the simplest safety precautions possible?
Again, see the above, if you're interested in interjecting the legal system in to my safety, there are a lot of other and even more intrusive steps you could take by making "Laws" for my own good and my safety, why not just go full bore and eliminate cigarettes and alcohol and save a lot more lives?
What are you going to do when they decide you need to protect Citizens from their own firearms? Just like a seat belt Law, if it would ever pass, would you enforce that Law, if not why not?
Quite frankly, I find it amusing that some folks get all dressed up in their leather costumes to ride their motorcycles, 'in case I have to slide' but don't wear helmets. Likewise, I think smokers are fools who succumbed to peer pressure at one point and are now addicted to nicotine, are to be pitied. It was sad, yet somewhat amusing, to watch my BIL's family members excuse themselves to go have a smoke as my BIL, their brother, uncle, son, lay dying of lung cancer. I also pity folks who have drinking problems.
B]Yes, but everyone should have the right to go to hell in any way they choose as long as it doesn't directly harm others. So if you decide to partake in potentially harmful activities, does the State have the right to step up and step in when your actions produce no harm to others?[/B]
I also disagree with this: and as the video shows ride around in a Cruiser with an untrained partner who is just as likely to shoot you as the Perp who's kicking your butt for reasons that I have stated previously.
Clearly She was inept,or untrained and dangerous to the other who serve around her. It's pretty simple. She's either lying to avoid possible prosecution or dangerous to work around.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
04-08-19, 15:56
You do understand a light bulb can go out at any time and it's really not a big deal. You can check your lights and five minutes later the light goes out, that's just how that works.
The bulb can be replaced in five minutes or less and if you tell someone that it's out and they have one available, why write the ticket?
Why tell someone who hasn't had a drink in a week that you smell alcohol? Is it because the Officer smelled alcohol or is it more likely because it was 0500 and the Officer thought I was coming home from a bar?
Of course I'm not a Cop, I wont understand the necessity of acting like that in order to "Go Fishing" in order to write a bigger and better ticket.
I tell people I see driving with a tail light out that they have a tail light out and if they choose to ride without a seat belt, I figure it is their business. That's what good people do and it's also the difference between being a Good Citizen, a Peace Officer and a Law Enforcement Officer.
But you keep pulling people over and generating revenue for the folks you work for, I'm sure you're good at it.
I am acutely aware of how lightbulbs work.
Maybe taking some personal responsibility for your actions will lead to better outcomes in the future.
If making a stop for a tail light turns into a "bigger" stop of a DUI, warrants, or drugs.....that seems like a positive for society, obviously not to you and thats okay, but it is for the rest of society.
I hope, if you are being unfairly targeted or harassed, that ends. No one deserves to be treated poorly by the police when they have done nothing to deserve it.
Averageman
04-08-19, 16:29
I am acutely aware of how lightbulbs work.
Maybe taking some personal responsibility for your actions will lead to better outcomes in the future.
Like keeping tools and spares for my lights in the glove box? That would seem to be above and beyond what 99% of the average driver is doing, but the ticket got finished, I mean it got finished after I had the bulb changed.
That wasn't the point though was it, the point of the stop was to see if I was drunk, the light bulb was just an excuse. Once I passed the sobriety I was sure to get the ticket, someone had to play CYA.
If making a stop for a tail light turns into a "bigger" stop of a DUI, warrants, or drugs.....that seems like a positive for society, obviously not to you and thats okay, but it is for the rest of society.
But if you're fishing, it really doesn't matter. People unknowingly commit several felony's a day and they do so totally unknowingly. If you follow anyone long enough you're going to find a fault and a reason to light them up so you can go fishing.
I hope, if you are being unfairly targeted or harassed, that ends. No one deserves to be treated poorly by the police when they have done nothing to deserve it.
I just wish attitudes would change including mine because when I get pulled over for some humbug light or licence plate cover stop, I kind of think well that guy's a d*ck and if I saw him getting his butt handed to him by a bad guy, I might sit and count to fifty before contemplating giving him a hand.
So in order for all of that attitude stuff to work, some of it has to come from the Law Enforcement side, otherwise you might alienate some good people who would otherwise support you.
Both of my Brothers have worked in Law Enforcement btw, so it's not like I'm a Cop hater.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
04-08-19, 16:40
Which felonies are being unkowingly committed everyday? High value theft, reason robbery, sex assault, murder, serious assault, burglary, eluding, identity theft, etc?
I just wish attitudes would change including mine because when I get pulled over for some humbug light or licence plate cover stop, I kind of think well that guy's a d*ck and if I saw him getting his butt handed to him by a bad guy, I might sit and count to fifty before contemplating giving him a hand.
So in order for all of that attitude stuff to work, some of it has to come from the Law Enforcement side, otherwise you might alienate some good people who would otherwise support you.
Both of my Brothers have worked in Law Enforcement btw, so it's not like I'm a Cop hater.
You understand how probable cause works right?
Making BS stops is different than actually citing for bullshit stats.
I’ve pulled folks on bullshit stuff before. They come back no wants, no warrants, no JTTF hits. Ok sir/ma’am have a nice day drive safe. I don’t like paperwork and I wasn’t going to waste time on BS paperwork.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
eightmillimeter
04-08-19, 19:41
If you think the seat belt law is for revenue, written for the police’s convenience, or just the man stepping on your rights, well sorry that’s all pretty ignorant.
If you think the seat belt law is for revenue, written for the police’s convenience, or just the man stepping on your rights, well sorry that’s all pretty ignorant.
So what is it for then?
What would my driving habits have to do with getting pulled over for
A) a tail light being out.
B) Having a plastic cover over my rear licence plate to keep the plate clean and visible?
A tail light being out is generally a pretty objective reason to stop a vehicle, compared to the fairly subjective 'I saw him swing wide on a turn' without video evidence to back it up.
Yes, or no, was your tail light out, and was your tag covered by a film with any tint in it? If they were you were in violation. If you need me to explain why it is required that your tail lights function, or why the state doesn't want you to obscure your tag, well, shit, I don't really have the patience.
In any event, let's say I saw you do something that made me think maybe you are impaired, something as innocent as swinging a little wide on a turn. My job is to follow you and use the vehicle in motion cues to either develop reasonable suspicion that you are impaired and need to be stopped, or to assure myself you are good to go without being stopped.
You take the ball out of my hands when you reach your home before I can make that determination. If you have a tail light out and I'm not to the point I'm satisfied you are not impaired, I'm probably going to make contact in your drive way. Why be such an asshole? Because I know that impaired drivers are responsible for over 25% of the traffic fatalities each year. I also know that the average person arrested for DUI has committed the offense two dozen or more times in the previous twelve months. Based on that, I'm not satisfied with I'll get you next time, we are going to talk face to face about your light/tag. That is me, I'm completely willing to admit their are asshole officers, just as there are asshole citizens.
The relevance is that you can and should be able to do any dumb and dangerous thing you choose to do, that is right up and to the point where the .gov creates a fine for a victim less crime. Then you better show your documents be humble and bend over and grab your ankles.
Please don't try and tell me you're fining me for not wearing a seat belt for my own safety and in the meantime all of those other activities are perfectly legal.
Got to be honest with you, the seat belt tickets I wrote were all 'in lieu of' tickets, as in 'I'm writing you for the seat belt, and giving you a warning on the speed tonight.....' I tried to focus enforcement action based on what action I thought would ensure compliance with the law for the rest of the trip. Except impaired, impaired always need to go to jail.
Again, see the above, if you're interested in interjecting the legal system in to my safety, there are a lot of other and even more intrusive steps you could take by making "Laws" for my own good and my safety, why not just go full bore and eliminate cigarettes and alcohol and save a lot more lives?
There is a societal cost associated with all the things you mention. We limit exposure to second hand smoke by not allowing smoking in restaurants, etc. We limit exposure to the effects of alcohol by having age restrictions, driving while impaired laws, and making it illegal to be drunk and disorderly.
These are efforts to focus on protecting the rights of all, while not crushing the individual's rights.
What are you going to do when they decide you need to protect Citizens from their own firearms? Just like a seat belt Law, if it would ever pass, would you enforce that Law, if not why not?
I'm retired. There is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, there is no Constitutional right to drive unbelted. But, answering your question, if I was working and the 2nd Amendment was repealed by the people of the United States, I'd have to do some thinking about my response. On the one hand, the majority of my fellow Americans apparently support such an action, on the other hand, my right to defend myself is inalienable.
Yes, but everyone should have the right to go to hell in any way they choose as long as it doesn't directly harm others. So if you decide to partake in potentially harmful activities, does the State have the right to step up and step in when your actions produce no harm to others?
I don't believe so, but once again, there are societal costs. Living in a society is always going to involve some degree of compromise, the goal is to make that compromise as minimal as possible. Some folks just don't get it.
Clearly She was inept,or untrained and dangerous to the other who serve around her. It's pretty simple. She's either lying to avoid possible prosecution or dangerous to work around.
I don't think so, she made a completely explained mistake that more experienced officers have also made. I would be willing to bet that not many officers experience such a rapidly evolving situation in their first tours of duty. It is obvious that the judge who dismissed the charges felt her actions weren't beyond the pale.
titsonritz
04-08-19, 23:20
Crazy bitches...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joym4HBiZn0
eightmillimeter
04-09-19, 00:57
So what is it for then?
Wrong question. The correct question is why people don’t want to wear it. The only reason people cite is because someone else says they have to, so therefore they don’t think they have to.... I don’t understand how people find this so repulsive, inconvenient, instructive.
But if I’m driving fine then it doesn’t apply to me...
Seriously, yes it does, you’re in a moving car therefore physics applies to you. I’ve spent the last 8 years downloading crash data from cars, most of which were driving “just fine” right up until that sudden velocity change and crippling or fatal injury.
Averageman
04-09-19, 01:01
A tail light being out is generally a pretty objective reason to stop a vehicle, compared to the fairly subjective 'I saw him swing wide on a turn' without video evidence to back it up.
Yes, or no, was your tail light out, and was your tag covered by a film with any tint in it? If they were you were in violation. If you need me to explain why it is required that your tail lights function, or why the state doesn't want you to obscure your tag, well, shit, I don't really have the patience.
In any event, let's say I saw you do something that made me think maybe you are impaired, something as innocent as swinging a little wide on a turn. My job is to follow you and use the vehicle in motion cues to either develop reasonable suspicion that you are impaired and need to be stopped, or to assure myself you are good to go without being stopped.
You take the ball out of my hands when you reach your home before I can make that determination. If you have a tail light out and I'm not to the point I'm satisfied you are not impaired, I'm probably going to make contact in your drive way. Why be such an asshole? Because I know that impaired drivers are responsible for over 25% of the traffic fatalities each year.
But clearly exiting with grocery bags, handing over licence and registration weren't enough. If we're that close and you can't detect my sobriety or lack there of what kind of professional are you?
I also know that the average person arrested for DUI has committed the offense two dozen or more times in the previous twelve months. Based on that, I'm not satisfied with I'll get you next time, we are going to talk face to face about your light/tag. That is me,
I'm completely willing to admit their are asshole officers, just as there are asshole citizens.
Thank You.
I don't think so, she made a completely explained mistake that more experienced officers have also made. I would be willing to bet that not many officers experience such a rapidly evolving situation in their first tours of duty. It is obvious that the judge who dismissed the charges felt her actions weren't beyond the pale.
That simply doesn't work in the field when lives depend upon it does it?
Although I've never served in Law Enforcement, I have had 21 years in the Military and 14 years as an in bedded Civilian and Subject Matter Expert, instructor/trainer in CONUS and OCONUS Military units.
I've served as a Marksmanship Instructor, a Senior Range Safety and a Master Gunner, training Soldiers to be safe and effective with firearms has been a big part of my life, I've also nearly escaped being shot in the head in 2011 by a Soldier who negligently discharged a a M2. You might not think I've got the experience to know or identify someone who is dangerous and untrained with a weapon or a weapon system, but really, I am.
I edited your text a bit for my own convenience, not because I don't have a debate for your points.
You understand how probable cause works right?
Making BS stops is different than actually citing for bullshit stats.
I’ve pulled folks on bullshit stuff before. They come back no wants, no warrants, no JTTF hits. Ok sir/ma’am have a nice day drive safe. I don’t like paperwork and I wasn’t going to waste time on BS paperwork.
So if the stops are BS are you infringing on their Constitutional rights and if you did so what was the effect on people who had essentially been subject to your BS?
Averageman
04-09-19, 01:22
Wrong question. The correct question is why people don’t want to wear it. The only reason people cite is because someone else says they have to, so therefore they don’t think they have to.... I don’t understand how people find this so repulsive, inconvenient, instructive.
But if I’m driving fine then it doesn’t apply to me...
Seriously, yes it does, you’re in a moving car therefore physics applies to you. I’ve spent the last 8 years downloading crash data from cars, most of which were driving “just fine” right up until that sudden velocity change and crippling or fatal injury.
So freedom be damned because by God you know better and you will ticket me for my own safety. Or maybe to impress your Boss about my safety and in the meantime generate enough revenues to justify your wages.
As I have stated before in this this thread, the motorcycle passes you without a seat belt or a helmet, all the laws of physics still apply and yet laws of physics be damned that SOB is legal.
Your arguments aren't supporting my desire to support Law Enforcement.
BTFW I hope you don't need my or "Our" help anytime soon, but Keep on Trucking Baby.
That kind of attitude certainly lets me know who will be on my doorstep when guns are outlawed.
Moose-Knuckle
04-09-19, 04:46
But, was all of this, over a BS seatbelt law really worth it?
The female officer didn't attempt to taze him because he didn't wear a seat belt. She ended up shooting him because he body slammed a fellow officer and then proceeded to hammer fist about his head.
I'm gonna remember you said this when they start kicking in doors and confiscating guns after they pass a nationwide ban.
You want to go all 1776 on some municipal LEO's over a traffic citation? :blink:
Comparing a routine traffic stop on a public roadway to armed intrusion into a private residence to confiscate firearms is a bit of a stretch. Now if they pulled him over and just shot him for the hell of it over a no seat belt violation then I could see your point but that is not what happened here. No matter one's personal views on seat belt laws does not justify assaulting a peace officer or anyone for that matter.
Lot's of noise to signal in this post.
However inane the laws are, that is a legislative issue of broader perspective likely to do with child safety & government incurred health cost of the uninsured, the time suck of getting pulled over doesn't warrant anyone to violence.
My take after participating in, witnessing, or attempting to repair as a first responder hundreds of instances of violence.
The initial officer that got grappled was face down in a position of tremendous disadvantage, being hit from the top rear in a way he could not defend against, with face inches off the pavement. Another blow to his head/neck could easily kill or permanently disable him. People are killed and paralyzed via blunt force strikes quite frequently. The pavement presenting a countercoup surface greatly increases the likelihood. Additionally, the officer underneath the suspect could easily have had his service weapon used against him, the other officer, and the public within a 1/4 to 1/2 second.
There is a fair argument that a Taser would have been the wrong decision. In my, and many others, experience they are not a reliable and repeatable means of stopping someone fast. If you have a time & distance, likely numerical, advantage it can be useful as a step in escalation of force. But perhaps not the right choice here with a very bad outcome to the disadvantaged officer possible inside of a second. A small physically weak officer who cannot or will not effectively intervein physically also, obviously, limits use of force options. Policy may also prevent less than lethal (intended) kinetic blows via baton or boot.
If that police department authorizes deadly force against imminent death or bodily harm, against imminent harm as most PD policy does, I would imagine deadly force intervention is justified.
Outstanding post, worded it better than I ever could.
Wrong question. The correct question is why people don’t want to wear it. The only reason people cite is because someone else says they have to, so therefore they don’t think they have to.... I don’t understand how people find this so repulsive, inconvenient, instructive.
But if I’m driving fine then it doesn’t apply to me...
Seriously, yes it does, you’re in a moving car therefore physics applies to you. I’ve spent the last 8 years downloading crash data from cars, most of which were driving “just fine” right up until that sudden velocity change and crippling or fatal injury.
The seat belt itself is a great idea in most cases, although I have known 2 people who would have likely been more seriously injured or killed if they had been wearing theirs.
The "law" part of that is a crock though and was what the question was asked for.
Seatbelts save lives. Period. As a subspecialty surgeon who handles facial trauma as part of my day job, I see this first hand. I take call at a level 1 trauma center and can say unequivocally that the patients I see who come to the ED after an MVC fare much better when wearing a seatbelt. Think rollover MVC....restrained people typically suffer relatively minor injuries, while unrestrained are typically completely F’d - like subdural or subarachnoid bleed, devastating facial and skull base fractures, long bone fractures, etc. F’d for life.
Comparing a routine traffic stop on a public roadway to armed intrusion into a private residence to confiscate firearms is a bit of a stretch.
Unfortunately not really. The slogans will all be the same for sure.
The officers are just doing their jobs, doing this for the public safety, no respect for lawful authority, if they don't like it then fight it in court instead of fighting the officers, exigent circumstances apply, established law, the supreme Court said it was Constitutional, and similar.
Seatbelts save lives. Period. As a subspecialty surgeon who handles facial trauma as part of my day job, I see this first hand. I take call at a level 1 trauma center and can say unequivocally that the patients I see who come to the ED after an MVC fare much better when wearing a seatbelt. Think rollover MVC....restrained people typically suffer relatively minor injuries, while unrestrained are typically completely F’d - like subdural or subarachnoid bleed, devastating facial and skull base fractures, long bone fractures, etc. F’d for life.
All well and good, but the same applies to eating wholesome foods versus junk.
Many of the devotees of that are showing the indicators of similar good idea fairies where they aren't content with saying xyz is better for you and leaving it at that and want advance their suggestion in to the legal area.
If you don't want to wear a seatbelt, cool but don't get pissy when you get stopped for it. You know the rules and risks to the game. Frankly, I don't care if you wear it or not and I rarely make seat belt violation stops. Should you crash and become crippled for life or a vegetable it becomes society's problem as your insurance likely won't cover your long term care beyond a certain point. Tax dollars and things like medicare take over and you become a burden on society. I still vividly remember the first and second fatal crashes I worked. First was a car into a tree at high speed because they missed the corner. No seatbelts, both killed on impact. I won't forget the screaming from their parents who showed up on scene. The ME said had they been wearing belts they would have lived with minor injuries. The second was a 21 year old male, DUI, no seatbelt worn. Rolled his truck into someone's backyard and was partially ejected out the driver's side window. His head was laying there like it was attached with a string or two with no structural support and he was bleeding from the nose and ears. He "lived" for a few more weeks in the hospital before his parents decided to pull the plug. The choice is yours though. I do wear one in my patrol car though, they absolutely save lives.
I had a post typed up about using traffic to be pro-active and actively hunting criminals, but unless you have worked as a cop where you have the time to do more than answer call to call you won't get it. Ole boy in the video chose poorly and dated to flex-up over a minor violation. The stark reality is that hammer fists from behind to the back of the skull is lethal force. Homie got shot for his efforts. She shouldn't have gone for her Taser in the first place. She ended up being right, in spite of screwing it up. Some people are just lucky. My Taser is carried weak side and I have yet to actually deploy the probes. I'd rather go hands on or use my 26" wooden baton. I've seen some cops with gun and Taser on the same side, gun on belt and Taser on a loose, floppy thigh rig right below the gun. That is a f^cking recipe for disaster, but they don't work for my PD.
If you don't want to wear a seatbelt, cool but don't get pissy when you get stopped for it. You know the rules and risks to the game. Frankly, I don't care if you wear it or not and I rarely make seat belt violation stops. Should you crash and become crippled for life or a vegetable it becomes society's problem as your insurance likely won't cover your long term care beyond a certain point. Tax dollars and things like medicare take over and you become a burden on society. I still vividly remember the first and second fatal crashes I worked. First was a car into a tree at high speed because they missed the corner. No seatbelts, both killed on impact. I won't forget the screaming from their parents who showed up on scene. The ME said had they been wearing belts they would have lived with minor injuries. The second was a 21 year old male, DUI, no seatbelt worn. Rolled his truck into someone's backyard and was partially ejected out the driver's side window. His head was laying there like it was attached with a string or two with no structural support and he was bleeding from the nose and ears. He "lived" for a few more weeks in the hospital before his parents decided to pull the plug. The choice is yours though. I do wear one in my patrol car though, they absolutely save lives.
I had a post typed up about using traffic to be pro-active and actively hunting criminals, but unless you have worked as a cop where you have the time to do more than answer call to call you won't get it. Ole boy in the video chose poorly and dated to flex-up over a minor violation. The stark reality is that hammer fists from behind to the back of the skull is lethal force. Homie got shot for his efforts. She shouldn't have gone for her Taser in the first place. She ended up being right, in spite of screwing it up. Some people are just lucky. My Taser is carried weak side and I have yet to actually deploy the probes. I'd rather go hands on or use my 26" wooden baton. I've seen some cops with gun and Taser on the same side, gun on belt and Taser on a loose, floppy thigh rig right below the gun. That is a f^cking recipe for disaster, but they don't work for my PD.
It's similar to anti-self defense laws. Enforcement against violators happens, but no sanctions for the backers of the scheme when one of the disarmed becomes a victim.
And how did tax dollars/Medicaid enter in to the mix? I don't recall seeing Medicaid or similar mentioned in the Constitution.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
States got jerked out of that, or at least should have, in the 1860's (I would hope enough died for that l) so where does Medicaid come from exactly?
I watched the video a few more times, the first officer had almost no control over the scene. When the driver tried to drive away, back up should have been called for and dude should have been removed from the vehicle. The driver's behavior is what directly lead to his getting shot. Yeah, the female officer ****ed up but she ended up being right. Hammer fists to the back of the head are easily lethal force. She probably could have gone hands on with LVNR and solved the problem in 3-5 seconds, cuff him while he is unconscious but I wasn't there and am just watching a dash-cam. Unfortunately, she strikes me to be like most female city cops. Smaller, less aggressive and more dependent on the tools on her belt. The badass female cop who can hold her own and fight is very rare. She didn't engage in the fight. She resigned and hopefully never tries to enter the profession again.
The driver, for those who actually watched the video and didn't just get bent about a seatbelt stop, telegraphed his intentions several times which should have elevated the lead officer's response from passive to more aggressive. There are a lot of great vehicle extraction techniques for those who want to learn them. The lead cop wasted a lot of time talking with dude, trying to de-escalate someone who didn't want to calm down. He should have acted swiftly and with aggression.
On to medicare/medicaid, that is who pays out for you to be a veggie in the hospital/hospice/at home care after your crash without a seatbelt or helmet and your private insurance stops paying out. Like I said, I don't really care if you want to drive around without a seatbelt or ride without a helmet. I do care when preventable injuries sustained from a possible crash mean that the people's taxes are being used to care for you after your poor decision making. Medicare isn't in the Constitution. If you're such a Constitutional guy, don't sign up for it when you hit that age and self-fund your private insurance. Better not make use of Social Security, that's not in the Constitution either.
Chiming in to say that tasers are more humane than good old fashioned country ass whippings which some people need
I watched the video a few more times, the first officer had almost no control over the scene. When the driver tried to drive away, back up should have been called for and dude should have been removed from the vehicle. The driver's behavior is what directly lead to his getting shot. Yeah, the female officer ****ed up but she ended up being right. Hammer fists to the back of the head are easily lethal force. She probably could have gone hands on with LVNR and solved the problem in 3-5 seconds, cuff him while he is unconscious but I wasn't there and am just watching a dash-cam. Unfortunately, she strikes me to be like most female city cops. Smaller, less aggressive and more dependent on the tools on her belt. The badass female cop who can hold her own and fight is very rare. She didn't engage in the fight. She resigned and hopefully never tries to enter the profession again.
The driver, for those who actually watched the video and didn't just get bent about a seatbelt stop, telegraphed his intentions several times which should have elevated the lead officer's response from passive to more aggressive. There are a lot of great vehicle extraction techniques for those who want to learn them. The lead cop wasted a lot of time talking with dude, trying to de-escalate someone who didn't want to calm down. He should have acted swiftly and with aggression.
On to medicare/medicaid, that is who pays out for you to be a veggie in the hospital/hospice/at home care after your crash without a seatbelt or helmet and your private insurance stops paying out. Like I said, I don't really care if you want to drive around without a seatbelt or ride without a helmet. I do care when preventable injuries sustained from a possible crash mean that the people's taxes are being used to care for you after your poor decision making. Medicare isn't in the Constitution. If you're such a Constitutional guy, don't sign up for it when you hit that age and self-fund your private insurance. Better not make use of Social Security, that's not in the Constitution either.
So you agree it isn't in the Constitution and suggest not using it? How does one avoid paying in to it without an outcome similar to the traffic stop video exactly?
Always been interesting how things in the Constitution, ranging from limits on .gov to individual rights, don't get nearly the amount of enforcement zeal as do things that aren't specifically listed as a .gov function.
eightmillimeter
04-09-19, 09:48
So freedom be damned because by God you know better and you will ticket me for my own safety. Or maybe to impress your Boss about my safety and in the meantime generate enough revenues to justify your wages.
As I have stated before in this this thread, the motorcycle passes you without a seat belt or a helmet, all the laws of physics still apply and yet laws of physics be damned that SOB is legal.
Your arguments aren't supporting my desire to support Law Enforcement.
BTFW I hope you don't need my or "Our" help anytime soon, but Keep on Trucking Baby.
That kind of attitude certainly lets me know who will be on my doorstep when guns are outlawed.
Yeah but, freedom, .... you just made my point.
The motorcycle argument is irrelevant.
For the record, I don’t care about tickets and have never been told to go out generate revenue, not that it matters anyway because I don’t have any time when I have a constant case load of crashes. So to make a silly comment like you hope I don’t need YOUR help, I hope you feel better about yourself and support whoever you wish.
Not seeing how the motorcycle helmet is irrelevant. Helmets and seat belts are invariably portrayed in the same light and mandatory helmet laws were once the norm.
Also haven't figured out how a driver can haul 3 unbelted people around in a car and it be indicative of imminent death and destruction, but the bus in the next lane with 90 unbelted passengers is safe as the front row at church.
Adrenaline_6
04-09-19, 10:13
Not seeing how the motorcycle helmet is irrelevant. Helmets and seat belts are invariably portrayed in the same light and mandatory helmet laws were once the norm.
Also haven't figured out how a driver can haul 3 unbelted people around in a car and it be indicative of imminent death and destruction, but the bus in the next lane with 90 unbelted passengers is safe as the front row at church.
Insurance lobbyists. If it doesn't make sense...follow the money.
As far as the guy goes, he was trying to beat down an officer for getting pulled over for a simple seat belt ticket. He made the bed...sleep in it sucka.
Insurance lobbyists. If it doesn't make sense...follow the money.
As far as the guy goes, he was trying to beat down an officer for getting pulled over for a simple seat belt ticket. He made the bed...sleep in it sucka.
So exactly like firearms laws and enforcement of the same.
ramairthree
04-09-19, 10:58
Nobody is saving seatbelts are not of benefit.
The concept is that it should not be a primary law worthy of a stop, or a toll for a fishing trip.
And as for this,
“You take the ball out of my hands when you reach your home before I can make that determination. If you have a tail light out and I'm not to the point I'm satisfied you are not impaired, I'm probably going to make contact in your drive way. Why be such an asshole? Because I know that impaired drivers are responsible for over 25% of the traffic fatalities each year. “
Dammit man, if 75% percent of accidents are caused by unimpaired drivers, you should focus your efforts on getting them off the road and it would save three times as many lives.
Seatbelts save lives. Period. As a subspecialty surgeon who handles facial trauma as part of my day job, I see this first hand. I take call at a level 1 trauma center and can say unequivocally that the patients I see who come to the ED after an MVC fare much better when wearing a seatbelt. Think rollover MVC....restrained people typically suffer relatively minor injuries, while unrestrained are typically completely F’d - like subdural or subarachnoid bleed, devastating facial and skull base fractures, long bone fractures, etc. F’d for life.
Yes, yes...seat belts save lives. Nobody disagrees with the wisdom of wearing seatbelts. The question is whether or not any governmental authority has the right to require people wear seatbelts (or motorcycle helmets, for that matter). At issue is the question of infringing on an individual's personal freedom to do stupid shit, vs. the government's self-presumed obligation to decrease the financial and societal burden imposed by the consequences of the stupid shit that those people do.
If the latter...where does it stop? Obesity in America imposes a financial and societal burden that is vastly greater than that of not wearing seatbelts. If the government has the right to force us to wear seatbelts, do they have the right to force us to exercise and eat healthy? If they catch you in a Dunkin' Donuts, should they then be able to write you a ticket? Seeing you in a McDonalds would be a valid reason for them to run you for wants and warrants, search your person and your cell phone, detain you while they wait for a dog to show up and give you a good sniff?
..
Dammit man, if 75% percent of accidents are caused by unimpaired drivers, you should focus your efforts on getting them off the road and it would save three times as many lives.
'IF' I was in charge there would be fewer licenses issued. And Averageman and jsbhike would be pissing and moaning about having to wear a seat belt on the bus.
'IF' I was in charge there would be fewer licenses issued. And Averageman and jsbhike would be pissing and moaning about having to wear a seat belt on the bus.
Then we could move on to people's diet or some other issue as probable cause to go on fishing trips I guess.
Yes, yes...seat belts save lives. Nobody disagrees with the wisdom of wearing seatbelts. The question is whether or not any governmental authority has the right to require people wear seatbelts (or motorcycle helmets, for that matter). At issue is the question of infringing on an individual's personal freedom to do stupid shit, vs. the government's self-presumed obligation to decrease the financial and societal burden imposed by the consequences of the stupid shit that those people do.
So back in the days before government, were people required/encouraged not to do stupid things for the good of the tribe?
As far as wearing seat belts, I don't believe you have to wear them on private property. Roadways are pretty much government/public property.
If the latter...where does it stop? Obesity in America imposes a financial and societal burden that is vastly greater than that of not wearing seatbelts. If the government has the right to force us to wear seatbelts, do they have the right to force us to exercise and eat healthy? If they catch you in a Dunkin' Donuts, should they then be able to write you a ticket? Seeing you in a McDonalds would be a valid reason for them to run you for wants and warrants, search your person and your cell phone, detain you while they wait for a dog to show up and give you a good sniff?
..
Going a little into a hyperbolic state here, aren't we? How does someone's obesity impact another person's safety or health? (Notwithstanding job requirements.)
We can take these thoughts and examples way down the rabbit hole and we are far from the initial subject of this thread.
Going a little into a hyperbolic state here, aren't we? How does someone's obesity impact another person's safety or health? (Notwithstanding job requirements.)
We can take these thoughts and examples way down the rabbit hole and we are far from the initial subject of this thread.
How does someone busting their head open on asphalt sans helmet or getting launched in to the dash/windshield affect someone else's safety or health short of the person/corpse sliding in to them? Probably ranks lower than increased risk of someone morbidly obese falling on someone, considering a key part of the scene is the already wrecked motorcycle/car sliding along near the person/corpse.
The claimed link on both is the public having to foot the medical care costs for the vehicle operator and those with poor eating habits. Few want to address the real issue that the public shouldn't be on the hook for that in the first place. So instead we have the progression of seat belt laws in the one area coupled with attempts to ban Oreos and Bloombergs big drink ban in another.
The initial subject was about someone getting pissed and fighting over a seat belt ticket. Can't recall the author, but their analogy to this kind of thing was similar to a 4 year old lording it over a 2 year old. Guaranteed to cause a fight more often than not. A difference in these cases is no adult is going to come around and come down hard on the 4 year old (not limited to the officers on scene but the whole system that put them there) so instead of knocking off the behavior it keeps building.
If all of the bull sh!t stops are to find drunk drivers, why aren’t restaurant, bar, and night club parking lots full of cops giving free breathalyzer tests? Ya know, protect and serve...
That wouldn’t fund the system though.
https://www.atlantaga.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=1420
Tag light requirement = base fine and processing $107 :stop:
Averageman
04-09-19, 13:14
'IF' I was in charge there would be fewer licenses issued. And Averageman and jsbhike would be pissing and moaning about having to wear a seat belt on the bus.
LOL. I bet if you could you would, so what does that say about you?
LOL. I bet if you could you would, so what does that say about you?
That I'm more concerned with your safety than I am your approval?
I just wanna bring back crucifixions
Adrenaline_6
04-09-19, 14:52
That I'm more concerned with your safety than I am your approval?
You do realize that is exactly what anti gun nuts think too right?
Adrenaline_6
04-09-19, 14:53
I just wanna bring back crucifixions
How about drawn and quartering? Too much?
If all of the bull sh!t stops are to find drunk drivers, why aren’t restaurant, bar, and night club parking lots full of cops giving free breathalyzer tests? Ya know, protect and serve...
The problem with that is that after Officer John says 'you are good to drive' and Joey plows into someone on the way home. Another reason might be that the club's management might not be too thrilled about it.
Most officers don't do nearly as much DUI enforcement as you probably imagine - it takes time process the arrestee and to do a good report, you end up in court, you don't make many friends with the folks you arrest, and, despite what you might think, there isn't a bounty system.
That wouldn’t fund the system though.
https://www.atlantaga.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=1420
Tag light requirement = base fine and processing $107 :stop:
So, shouldn't the folks who use the system help fund the system?
In all seriousness, if you are getting written for a tag light there are several things I can think of:
1) the officer thought the ticket was 'needed' to back up what else transpired during the stop, as in: he stopped you because you looked like a stoner and you had a tag light out, he smelled odor of MJ and his dog alerted, probably going to write you the tag light to tie everything togehter;
2) you talked yourself into the ticket;
3) you were ticketed by an officer who feels the best way to approach things and be fair is to issue cites to all he stops - some guys see things black and white like that;
4) you ran into an officer who is on a power trip - their are jerks that are doctors, pastors, cops, teachers, shoe store clerks and so on.....can't be helped;
5) you need to understand that, in particular traffic officers and Troopers have a job description that involves writing such citations, it literally is their job.
You do realize that is exactly what anti gun nuts think too right?
Yes, but in my case, I can point to a direct correlation between seat belt usage and fatality reduction. Gun laws, not so much.
Adrenaline_6
04-09-19, 15:26
Yes, but in my case, I can point to a direct correlation between seat belt usage and fatality reduction. Gun laws, not so much.
True...but like mentioned before, that also goes for eating poorly. People can do to themselves what they want, no matter how stupid you or I think it is and no matter how much "better" we think it is for them. The seat belt law came into play due to insurance lobbyists..thats it. If it didn't save them money or worse, cost them money, it wouldn't be law. Plain and simple. Thinking it was and is done for public safety is nonsense....it would be reversed in the name of "freedom" if for some reason switched and cost the insurance companies more.
;
4) you ran into an officer who is on a power trip - their are jerks that are doctors, pastors, cops, teachers, shoe store clerks and so on.....can't be helped;
.
I really want to see the articles on doctors, pastors, and shoe store clerks where they have went Hands-On with someone who refused their services.
Will be even better if the article has one of their co-workers show up and join in the fight to force the service to be rendered.
How about drawn and quartering? Too much?While definitely a tool of influence, drawing and quartering is only realy impactful for those who witness it when it is performed. With the crucifiction the message and the actual suffering is up for everyone one to see, for days.
Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk
I just want to see crucifixions come back. It's all I want
So, shouldn't the folks who use the system help fund the system?
In all seriousness, if you are getting written for a tag light there are several things I can think of:
1) the officer thought the ticket was 'needed' to back up what else transpired during the stop, as in: he stopped you because you looked like a stoner and you had a tag light out, he smelled odor of MJ and his dog alerted, probably going to write you the tag light to tie everything togehter;
2) you talked yourself into the ticket;
3) you were ticketed by an officer who feels the best way to approach things and be fair is to issue cites to all he stops - some guys see things black and white like that;
4) you ran into an officer who is on a power trip - their are jerks that are doctors, pastors, cops, teachers, shoe store clerks and so on.....can't be helped;
5) you need to understand that, in particular traffic officers and Troopers have a job description that involves writing such citations, it literally is their job.
I’d be happy with a “pay for services” system. I call the cops, I’ll pay the bill. As it is, I’m being forced to pay taxes to fund a system I really don’t use.
1) never gotten a tag light ticket. I don’t look like a stoner. I don’t smoke weed. I posted the “price list” to show that it’s a revenue scheme.
2) that’s bull shit. If you’re gonna use that as a reason to pull someone over, write the ticket and move along.
3) that’s equal justice. It’s better than selective enforcement.
4) human nature. Only the officer can pull me over and write a ticket though.
5)proves my point that it’s revenue driven. Funny thing is, you never see the popo in Dixie Hills or the Bluff ticketing the homies rolling through stop signs. They’re in Virginia highlands, Vinings, Lenox, and cruising the frat lap around Chastain Park writing tickets. No money in the hood though. They’ll fail to pay or appear in court and end up with a warrant. That costs the city, no benefit.
I really want to see the articles on doctors, pastors, and shoe store clerks where they have went Hands-On with someone who refused their services.
Will be even better if the article has one of their co-workers show up and join in the fight to force the service to be rendered.
Now you are being obtuse. I don't believe Averageman was manhandled, were you?
Now you are being obtuse. I don't believe Averageman was manhandled, were you?
You made the claim a cop on a power trip was the same as one in any other occupation. The only one that you listed that is similar is teachers.
You made the claim a cop on a power trip was the same as one in any other occupation. The only one that you listed that is similar is teachers.
read the next post
You made the claim a cop on a power trip was the same as one in any other occupation. The only one that you listed that is similar is teachers.
Actually, I said there were jerks in all professions. Have you ever had a doctor 'talk down' to you as if you cant understand what he is saying? That would be an example.
Actually, I said there were jerks in all professions. Have you ever had a doctor 'talk down' to you as if you cant understand what he is saying? That would be an example.
And when they decide to be jerks their intended victims can walk away or tell them to shove off. If the jerk from another occupational group wishes to force the issue and attempts to detain their intended victim and gets force returned their victim isn't the one considered to be in the wrong. And others in their respective fields aren't going to show up and join in to assist their colleague in being a jerk either.
ramairthree
04-11-19, 11:36
How about drawn and quartering? Too much?
You guys are leaving out impalements.
Adrenaline_6
04-11-19, 13:01
You guys are leaving out impalements.
Shoot...a week in the stocks, while getting randomly barraged with rotten vegetables and slop would set most people straight.
Moose-Knuckle
04-13-19, 04:16
Unfortunately not really. The slogans will all be the same for sure.
If you honestly cannot see the difference between a patrolman issuing a driver a traffic citation and multiple Federal tactical teams besieging Ruby Ridge then well I honestly don't know how you've made it this far. I mean you have a DL, file an income tax, register your vehicles, etc.?
The officers are just doing their jobs, doing this for the public safety, no respect for lawful authority, if they don't like it then fight it in court instead of fighting the officers, exigent circumstances apply, established law, the supreme Court said it was Constitutional, and similar.
So your saying in this case the driver did nothing wrong when he refused to cooperate for nearly ten minutes, then exits his vehicle, body slams the male officer, and proceeds to hammer fist his skull into the pavement all in the name of muh Don't Tread on Me?
If you honestly cannot see the difference between a patrolman issuing a driver a traffic citation and multiple Federal tactical teams besieging Ruby Ridge then well I honestly don't know how you've made it this far. I mean you have a DL, file an income tax, register your vehicles, etc.?
So your saying in this case the driver did nothing wrong when he refused to cooperate for nearly ten minutes, then exits his vehicle, body slams the male officer, and proceeds to hammer fist his skull into the pavement all in the name of muh Don't Tread on Me?
Most, maybe all, of those slogans got used alongside the Weaver incident. Who got punished over that deal?
He exited the vehicle? Do you mean forcibly removed from the vehicle? Would be willing to bet that "exited the vehicle" is the kind of description of events that would coincide with a firearms confiscation also.
What I am saying is, that incident is worth it to everyone backing seatbelt laws just like income tax and anti 2nd Amendment laws. It is very similar in concept to a 4 year old lording it over a 2 year old and results are often similar as well.
Crazy bitches...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joym4HBiZn0
I watched that on CNN one morning and wondered why the hammer was cocked right before blam.
That was failure to pay child support the best I can recall.
Was also interesting that they didn't play it over and over that day like every other news clip.
Government employees are some of the lowest quality employees there are to be had.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.