Aaaaaaand...she's a law student...

[OverMountainMan]

What does the British Stamp Act of 1765 have to do with getting pulled over for a vehicular safety violation in 2016?

Good question. Because the 4th Amendment was included in the Constitution as a way to keep the government from sticking its nose into every nook and crevice of your existence. The Founders had lived through King George doing exactly that, and wanted to prevent similar road pirates from going on a fishing expedition at their whim.

 

[OverMountainMan]

I've got some other dragons to slay, so I need to step away from this discussion for a while. Play purty, while I'm gone.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Then why the obvious redundancy of saying employed and conducting?

Why, indeed.

Language is full of redundancy and contradictions.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Good question. Because the 4th Amendment was included in the Constitution as a way to keep the government from sticking its nose into every nook and crevice of your existence. The Founders had lived through King George doing exactly that, and wanted to prevent similar road pirates from going on a fishing expedition at their whim.

Again...what's this have to do with the subject at hand? Her brake lights weren't working. She wasn't being arrested and hauled off for an inquisition.

Anyway, slay some dragons! I oughta go do some of that myself.

 

[Chuckman]

Dang. I'll engage in stop and frisk. Whip out the handcuffs. Maybe illegally search.

 

[HMP]

Good question. Because the 4th Amendment was included in the Constitution as a way to keep the government from sticking its nose into every nook and crevice of your existence. The Founders had lived through King George doing exactly that, and wanted to prevent similar road pirates from going on a fishing expedition at their whim.

Hmmm I dont know man, I think youre using Stamp Act in this when you should be talking about the Writs of Assistance. Which came long before the SA.

Frankly, that was a bad example.

 

[Cowboy]

Dang. I'll engage in stop and frisk. Whip out the handcuffs. Maybe illegally search.

Probably get a 30 minute conversation about what she got all her cats for Christmas.

 

[Chuckman]

Probably get a 30 minute conversation about what she got all her cats for Christmas.

Not with the gag she'll have in her mouth....

 

[J R Green]

Citing the driver, even if its someone else's car, is a violation of rights?

Of course not. Citing the owner of the vehicle and giving the citation to the driver because you ASS-U-ME they are the same you have violated the rights of the own who did nothing wrong except let a ____ drive their vehicle.

 

[Button Pusher]

Dang. I'll engage in stop and frisk. Whip out the handcuffs. Maybe illegally search.

Looks can be deceiving .

 

[rotorhead]

Idk, under the current legal conditions the officers had every legal right to ask for and demand to see her license as part of the stop. Did they have to break the window? Personally I thought that was a bit excessive, based on the lack of a demonstrated urgency.

In other words, unless they could demonstrate that the person posed an immediate risk of injury to them or herself or others, they could have maybe handled it differently.

Maybe.

Still....hawt.

 

[J R Green]

Idk, under the current legal conditions the officers had every legal right to ask for and demand to see her license as part of the stop. Did they have to break the window? Personally I thought that was a bit excessive, based on the lack of a demonstrated urgency.

In other words, unless they could demonstrate that the person posed an immediate risk of injury to them or herself or others, they could have maybe handled it differently.

Maybe.

Still....hawt.

Just curious, how many man hours do the people that we hire to enforce the law need to negotiate with someone like her before they do their job? She had her chance to do right.

 

[rotorhead]

Just curious, how many man hours do the people that we hire to enforce the law need to negotiate with someone like her before they do their job? She had her chance to do right.

All depends on the situation at hand, I guess. In this case, from what is presented in the video, it looks like they exhausted most means of playing nice. She certainly had ample opportunity to comply with the initial requests, and later demands.

Could they have waited longer for a more peaceful resolution? Maybe. Did they have to? No.

 

[Chuckman]

Looks can be deceiving .

 

[GymB]

What a stupid example to use as an argument for freedom and responsibility.

There is no dispute about the fact that she was operating the vehicle without brake lights, that doing so is a traffic violation, or in the law stating that a LEO can pull you over for a traffic violation and demand your drivers license. Even in the hypothetical conversation @OverMountainMan proposed the officer wouldn’t even know who they are addressing in order to write the citation or warning. She is an idiot, not a poster child for freedom loving people.

 

[gc70]

41st post in the thread, and no one else has yet seen fit to give her an attagirl? No one thinks she has a fundamental human right to be secured in her possessions and papers, or that Mister LEO is bound by oath to abide by the document that affirms that right in its 4th Amendment?

Well then, attagirl, Miss law student. There is no shame in standing up for yourself.

There is a difference between standing up for yourself and acting stupidly.

The ACLU and Georgia Legal Aid are clear that a person must "Show your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance upon request." if stopped while driving a car. That is not a shocking concept to most law students or law school graduates. Such laws exist because driving a vehicle on a public road is a privilege licensed by the state. When people accept a drivers license to use that privilege, they agree to a number of things, one of which is typically to show their license to law enforcement if requested to do so while driving.

Admittedly, most citizens do nothing to find out what laws apply to having a drivers license. But a person studying the law should do so, particularly if they intend to start hollering at police on the side of the road.

 

[Alfred]

She should be charged with "2nd Degree Attempted You tube Video in a Vertical Format".

 

[HMP]

All depends on the situation at hand, I guess. In this case, from what is presented in the video, it looks like they exhausted most means of playing nice. She certainly had ample opportunity to comply with the initial requests, and later demands.

Could they have waited longer for a more peaceful resolution? Maybe. Did they have to? No.

We also dont know how long they waited. Ive only watched it the one time, but it seemed like it cut a bit, like maybe she stopped recording a time or two, or it was edited to get rid of times when nothing was happening.

Either way, she was in the wrong on this.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Dang. I'll engage in stop and frisk. Whip out the handcuffs. Maybe illegally search.

Nah, not me. No amount of personal dealings is worth that level of active stupidity. If she's like this on the surface for all to see, just imagine what she's really like in all other matters.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Just curious, how many man hours do the people that we hire to enforce the law need to negotiate with someone like her before they do their job? She had her chance to do right.

Exactly.

A bit off the beaten path, here, but this reminds me of the time we (all the people in the Navy) had to attend yet ANOTHER leadership training course, this one "TQL", or Total Quality Leadership.

The instructor noticed my somewhat indifferent attitude about the course and commented on the fact that I obviously disagreed with it and asked what I thought was appropriate.

I said "How about 'shut the f*ck up and do your job?' What's wrong with expecting people to be adults and holding them to their responsibilities?"

I told him that this was obviously a corporate leadership style, not at all geared towards the military. This isn't Star Trek...when we're up to our *ssholes in Romulans, we don't gather in the Captain's Ready Room and sit around a table debating what to do. If we're in port conducting training or repairs...that's one thing. Even so, I'm not putting up with sh*t from somebody whose sole purpose in life is to give me sh*t. People who want to play that game don't get a bunch of debating and cajoling from me just to get them to be an adult and do their job. They get a nice, piping hot cuppa STFU with a side order of Liberty Dependent Work.

Make no mistake here...this lady isn't going on about Fourth Amendment rights, or asserting her right to refuse permission for a requested search, or any such thing. She was being an *sshole for the sake of being an *sshole.

If you're going to be an *sshole, then you'd better be RIGHT. Even so, you'd d*mn well better be smart about it, too.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

But a person studying the law should do so, particularly if they intend to start hollering at police on the side of the road.

Now, now...we should be fair!

She lists Constitutional Law, Contract Law, Commercial Law, Trust Law, and Private Law on her facebook page. Nothing in there says anything about Traffic Law!

 

[Button Pusher]

There should be a 'driving while being stupid' infraction they can issue to her.
Four officers tied up for one woman who was being foolish and dumb.
I hope they show this on Dumbest People tv show.

 

[smithnwesley]

There should be a 'driving while being stupid' infraction they can issue to her.
Four officers tied up for one woman who was being foolish and dumb.
I hope they show this on Dumbest People tv show.

Wishful thinking but that means 3/4 of our population would be incarcerated as repeat offenders

 

[HMP]

There should be a 'driving while being stupid' infraction they can issue to her.
Four officers tied up for one woman who was being foolish and dumb.
I hope they show this on Dumbest People tv show.

I once heard that a traffic infraction is not a crime and therefore you shouldnt have to surrender your ID... lol

 

[smithnwesley]

I once heard that a traffic infraction is not a crime and therefore you shouldnt have to surrender your ID... lol

File that under fake news!

 

[Matt.Cross]

You assume that the driver is the legal owner?
...

You are wrong... again.

Actually, he said 'operator' rather than 'owner', which would mean that in fact it is you who is wrong

 

[RAEIndustries]

These "dingbats" represent all of us every day in court

most are sitting on the bench now

 

[OverMountainMan]

I really thought more folks here would see the value of fighting the erosion of their rights. All of their rights. Government's natural tendency is to expand its own power, at the expense of its citizens/subjects. The scant regard you have toward defending your right to be left alone today (happily exchanged for the illusion of a little security) won't serve to keep your talons sharp for that time they infringe upon your other rights again and again. The machinations afoot in this country are no different from Stalin's Russia, little stages of tyranny all legal then just as now. All done for the alleged "security" of those foolish enough to believe someone else could or would ever deliver it.

What did you do for Liberty today, Dad? I mocked a you-tuber who thought she was free to withdraw her consent from the tyrant, son. Gee, Dad, way to go.

If this thread is any indication, the American spirit is dead.

 

[HMP]

File that under fake news!

(watch the video again)

 

[HMP]

I really thought more folks here would see the value of fighting the erosion of their rights. All of their rights. Government's natural tendency is to expand its own power, at the expense of its citizens/subjects. The scant regard you have toward defending your right to be left alone today (happily exchanged for the illusion of a little security) won't serve to keep your talons sharp for that time they infringe upon your other rights again and again. The machinations afoot in this country are no different from Stalin's Russia, little stages of tyranny all legal then just as now. All done for the alleged "security" of those foolish enough to believe someone else could or would ever deliver it.

What did you do for Liberty today, Dad? I mocked a you-tuber who thought she was free to withdraw her consent from the tyrant, son. Gee, Dad, way to go.

If this thread is any indication, the American spirit is dead.

What right was eroded in this video?

 

[J R Green]

Actually, he said 'operator' rather than 'owner', which would mean that in fact it is you who is wrong

He assumed they were the same otherwise what name would he put on the warning? Nice try. Heres your prize.

 

[Matt.Cross]

...

"Ma'am, I pulled you over because your taillights aren't working. May I see you license and registration?"

"Officer, if there's no crime that I'm accused of committing, you have no right to my information, or to touch me or my property."

"That's correct. May I assume that you're the legal operator of this vehicle, that it's not stolen, such that I can write you a warning ticket to get it fixed?"

"Yes officer, you may. I've committed no crime."

He assumed they were the same otherwise what name would he put on the warning?

Pray tell where my friend assumed that the operator and the owner were one and the same, because his post is certainly incongruous with your conclusion.

As far as what name to use for the warning, he should use the name the vehicle is registered to, as they are the person legally responsible for the vehicle conforming to state law.

 

[J R Green]

Pray tell where my friend assumed that the operator and the owner were one and the same, because his post is certainly incongruous with your conclusion.

Read the whole sentence and the answer you seek so shall you find.

 

[Matt.Cross]

Read the whole sentence

I have, multiple times.

and the answer you seek so shall you find.

Once again, you are quite wrong. It appears that you are projecting your own assumptions as someone else's, and that's a mistake beneath your intelligence in my opinion.

 

[J R Green]

 

[Culper]

I really thought more folks here would see the value of fighting the erosion of their rights. All of their rights. Government's natural tendency is to expand its own power, at the expense of its citizens/subjects. The scant regard you have toward defending your right to be left alone today (happily exchanged for the illusion of a little security) won't serve to keep your talons sharp for that time they infringe upon your other rights again and again. The machinations afoot in this country are no different from Stalin's Russia, little stages of tyranny all legal then just as now. All done for the alleged "security" of those foolish enough to believe someone else could or would ever deliver it.

What did you do for Liberty today, Dad? I mocked a you-tuber who thought she was free to withdraw her consent from the tyrant, son. Gee, Dad, way to go.

If this thread is any indication, the American spirit is dead.

Personally, I do not view her actions as "fighting the erosions of their rights." Some folks may, and that's fine. I also don't think her end game was to defend liberty and freedom, but that is simply my opinion, maybe that was her intent?

I am all for folks understanding their rights to the fullest extent, and exercising them to the fullest extend. I simply don't equate her actions with the above sentiment.

The American spirit is far from dead. The folks on this forums are far more liberty minded than the general population. I have learned a lot from them, and continue to do so. You got to remember everyone is at a different spot in life, and doing things like referring to other posters as "short bus riders" does not help further the cause of liberty mindedness.

 

[gc70]

I really thought more folks here would see the value of fighting the erosion of their rights. All of their rights. Government's natural tendency is to expand its own power, at the expense of its citizens/subjects. The scant regard you have toward defending your right to be left alone today (happily exchanged for the illusion of a little security) won't serve to keep your talons sharp for that time they infringe upon your other rights again and again. The machinations afoot in this country are no different from Stalin's Russia, little stages of tyranny all legal then just as now. All done for the alleged "security" of those foolish enough to believe someone else could or would ever deliver it.

What did you do for Liberty today, Dad? I mocked a you-tuber who thought she was free to withdraw her consent from the tyrant, son. Gee, Dad, way to go.

If this thread is any indication, the American spirit is dead.

Standing up for rights is tremendously important. But it is equally important to recognize when people are falsely claiming to defend rights, when all they are actually doing is crying wolf and playing the "dindu nuffin" shuffle.

This thread is a great reflection of critical thinking; members of this forum are not prone to being easily led around by whatever they are told.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I really thought more folks here would see the value of fighting the erosion of their rights. All of their rights. Government's natural tendency is to expand its own power, at the expense of its citizens/subjects. The scant regard you have toward defending your right to be left alone today (happily exchanged for the illusion of a little security) won't serve to keep your talons sharp for that time they infringe upon your other rights again and again. The machinations afoot in this country are no different from Stalin's Russia, little stages of tyranny all legal then just as now. All done for the alleged "security" of those foolish enough to believe someone else could or would ever deliver it.

What did you do for Liberty today, Dad? I mocked a you-tuber who thought she was free to withdraw her consent from the tyrant, son. Gee, Dad, way to go.

If this thread is any indication, the American spirit is dead.

When I see an erosion of rights, I'll fight it.

All I see here is an erosion common decency and good manners.

 

[GymB]

As far as what name to use for the warning, he should use the name the vehicle is registered to, as they are the person legally responsible for the vehicle conforming to state law.

I’m assuming you’re responding to my earlier query. Are you certain about your position? I don’t think that the law requires that the owner of a vehicle maintain the brake lights, it requires that the operator of the vehicle only use the public roads if the brake lights are functional. As always, I could have this all wrong, but I’ve never heard of a vehicle owner being ticketed when they are not the operator.

I really thought more folks here would see the value of fighting the erosion of their rights.

What you view as fighting for our rights, at least in this example, is akin to standing in the path of a river and expecting it to change course. The people have granted powers to the government and the police, if you want to change that then, much like changing the course of the river, you must make changes upstream. You want to fight for liberty, sell all your guns, ammunition and reloading supplies and go out and convince like-minded people to vote for like-minded candidates at all levels of government, to do otherwise is to stand in the river and wish/hope that it will change course. FWIW, pissing in the river while standing in it will also not cause it to change course.

 

[Matt.Cross]

I’m assuming you’re responding to my earlier query. Are you certain about your position? I don’t think that the law requires that the owner of a vehicle maintain the brake lights, it requires that the operator of the vehicle only use the public roads if the brake lights are functional. As always, I could have this all wrong, but I’ve never heard of a vehicle owner being ticketed when they are not the operator.

I was particularly addressing @J R Green 's comments about how the hypothetical warning ticket would be addressed.

If the ticket concerns the legality and safety of the vehicle in question, the identity of the operator is irrelevant to how the warning ticket should be addressed. If the car is legally registered, the ticket would only need to be addressed to the party responsible for the safe and legal status of the vehicle, that would be the registered and insured owner (not necessarily the operator.)

Being that a warning is not punitive, but administrative in nature, this seems to be a reasonable answer, especially given that registration information is readily accessable to law enforcement without the requirement of identification.

@J R Green is too busy being obtuse to make an effort at understanding, which suggests that I've misperceived his intellectual integrity.