OP
The OPERATOR is responsible for ensuring any vehicle they operate is properly maintained in all aspects because it is the OPERATOR who is out and about on public roads in the vehicle.
Aaaaaaand...she's a law student...
- Thread starter RetiredUSNChief
- Start date
- Replies 192
- Views 18,480
- Status
If I understand correctly, you are adding to the hypothetical scenario both that the law be rewritten such that the owner is responsible for the car being in proper order rather than the operator, and that the only enforcement action under the law is that a warning is sent to the owner. This doesn’t seem workable to me. What is the warning exactly if there is no potential for any other action? Do you imagine that after some number of warnings the car would be impounded, but what if the operator refused to exit the vehicle? What happens if the operator backs into a wall and breaks the lights and continues to drive, is the owner somehow responsible? What if it is a rental car, or what if the operator stole the car? Perhaps most commonly, what if it’s a car you bought for your son that is titled in your name?
The law is currently written such that the operator of a vehicle is responsible for it being in proper order. The operator is unquestionably in a better position than the owner to make this determination. Placing the burden on the owner would be unworkable.
How the hell did we end up this far into a hypothetical scenario? Can we agree that the lady is a nut and her behavior is not a good examp,e of effectivly challenging authority to preserve freedom?
What part of driving is a privilege don't she understand?
Failure to relinquish a drivers license to a peace officer is a crime. I didn't watch the whole video, did they tell her that?
Failure to relinquish a drivers license to a peace officer is a crime. I didn't watch the whole video, did they tell her that?
I watched it, and I have to say they did not do a good job of explaining the rules to her. However, that didn't excuse her behavior. If everyone stood up for their "rights" to operate a defective motor vehicle, which was not properly licensed and insured, on public roads, we would have anarchy.
The operator is the responsible party, they are the ones who took the vehicle on the road. You know this to be true (at least you had to when you got your license). Your issue is your friend SH@ the bed on this thread and instead of guiding him in the real world you decided to get under the covers with him.
Playing these semantics games and hypotheticals just to imply that I was wrong isn't flying for you on here any better than it did for your friend.
P.S. You might do well to find out how warning tickets work too.
Last edited:
It's not the police's job to have to convince every irrational person on the side of the road of what the law says. Just to enforce the laws.
Agreed. But there might be a better method of communication than "give me your license, or I will break out your window." Communication is key in these circumstances. When communication is proper and then is ignored, stronger measures are called for.
That's what I was getting at. Just a bit of tact, would have gone better... Maybe.
" your failure to relinquish your drivers license when asked for by a police officer is breaking the law. If you don't give me your license I'll be forced to remove you from the vehicle and arrest you. Do you understand? "
Say it once more. If it don't happen, then start stepping on some necks...
OP
OP
Seems to me the whole video leading up to the window breaking was full of officers trying to explain and driver trying to be a jack*ss. At what point should enough be enough?
I don't accept this kind of jack*ssery from my own kids, from any of the Sailors I ever worked with, or from any of the people I work with. At some point, enough is enough and you stop playing nice.
Chuckman
Senior Member
I wouldn't have to marry her. Hell, I wouldn't even have to talk with her. I wouldn't even have to know her name.
Agreed, I don't play baseball. So for me it 2 strikes.. Then hammer down.
I think the breakdown in society is because the police are trying to negotiate with the criminals. Negotiating implies that the offender doesn't have to accept the consequences. Can you imagine what would have happened to your grand father if he had pulled that kind of crap back in the day?
Just pay your cost. LOL
RedneckFur
Smith & Wesson is a religion of peace.
Incorrect. Keeping arms, and freely traveling are both civil rights.
OP
Still...I've learned through some rather expensive lessons that there are some women you should just stay away from.
When the "DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!" alarms are going off, best to take heed.
I didn't say TRAVELLING wasn't a right. I said DRIVING wasn't a right.
If you choose to drive a vehicle on a public road, you are subject to the traffic rules, regulations, laws, etc.
There is nothing that says you HAVE to drive or use public roads. It's just a whole lot more convenient when we do. That's why we submit to following those rules, regulations, laws, etc.
DrPhudd
Joe thinks I'm clever
Am I the only one that sees the irony of a traffic stop to inform (or punish) a driver because their vehicle was broken, that ended in the officers breaking it more?
As far as how long they should have waited... I do not care. The lady was a threat to no one. I am of the opinion that damaging personal property is not an appropriate punishment for broken taillights and being mouthy.
I agree that this was not the hill to die on. I would have simply complied. I do appreciate what she was trying to do though.
As far as how long they should have waited... I do not care. The lady was a threat to no one. I am of the opinion that damaging personal property is not an appropriate punishment for broken taillights and being mouthy.
I agree that this was not the hill to die on. I would have simply complied. I do appreciate what she was trying to do though.
Which was?
I would say that's the million dollar question.
We need a poll.
1. Waste taxpayer money
2. Create an opportunity to litigate, hope for a windfall
3. Get a video that might go viral, hope for a windfall
4. Get a date with the cute man in uniform
5. Selflessly battle to protect the liberties of all Americans
You make several leaps of logic here. Explaining the reason for the stop, and the fact that producing a license is REQUIRED on a lawful traffic stop is not negotiating. Also, a person who has committed what amount to an infraction, which in NC at least is a non-criminal violation of law, is not a criminal. In this case she might have acquired criminal status by not cooperating with the officers.
Also not true. Explaining the rules and laws, which can have the effect of diffusing a situation, is not negotiating.
That implies that police were less tolerant and perhaps more macho is days of old. I beg to differ. However, attitude is important. I've always been polite, respectful and cooperative with LEO. I have gotten the same treatment in return, almost without exception over my 63+ years, including 47+ years as a driver.
PS - I believe the war on drugs and the need to preserve evidence has contributed more to the attitudes of LEO than any other issue.
DrPhudd
Joe thinks I'm clever
She definitely achieved 1; 2 & 3 are plausible, 4 is doubtful, all while in her mind at least attempting 5
Thats nice in hindsight but without checking id how do they know she was legally operating, had insurance, wasnt a wanted criminal etc.
Ive been pulled numerous times. Guess how many problems ive had? None.
DrPhudd
Joe thinks I'm clever
I have too. I have politely refused to incriminate myself when we both knew full well I was speeding (he had no proof, I got no ticket) "Why no officer, I do not know exactly how fast I was going". I have also very politely refused to be searched (long before CCH, at a licence check, they wanted to "run the numbers" on a handgun that was on my seat) no problems.
Were it not for the tail light, whether she was legally operating, had insurance, wasn't a wanted criminal etc. would be none of their concern. I never said what she did was smart, or even right. I do believe she thought she was doing the right thing. As we all free folks should.
here, it looks like you are out, borrow some of mine ' ' ' ' '
6. BS her way out of a ticket when she knew she was wrong.
Like you say it's REQUIRED why are we discussing it? Why does the police have to waste their time trying to convince her?
I'm outright saying that the police of old were not as tolerant to the trophy holders as they are today.
There is obviously an education issue and it appears the state is addressing it in the learners handbook. This might help with the newbies, a low percentage off drivers. Maybe leo can use it also, flyers/pamphlets, for current drivers, if they care to make life easier on themselves and others?
http://www.wral.com/nc-to-teach-drivers-what-to-do-in-traffic-stops/17217964/
Maybe a windshield-sized black sticker with the key elements of the law printed on the inside in white. Instead of arguing just apply the sticker and wait for the driver to exit the vehicle.
OP
You're right. They shoulda used other tactics.
Like, maybe, chuck a tear gas grenade though the open window or something.
I don't appreciate what she did at all.
Well, except maybe video the event in order to show the world what a jack*ss she was. Other than that, I don't appreciate jack*ssery at all.
If this lady had been one of my own daughters acting like this, I wouldn't have had any more sympathy.
You get pulled over for faulty brake lights and want to escallate the encounter from MAYBE a citation with a small token fine (that in my experience is likely to be dismissed in court if you bothered to show up in traffic court showing you repaired the light and asked that the fine be dismissed) to possibly assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WANT TO SHOW THE OFFICER YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE, then that's OK by me.
Lemme add some butter to my popcorn while I sit back and enjoy the entertainment.
OverMountainMan
Cryogenically Hardened Member
Let's say that perhaps the issue is whether this interaction should be
Now, Officer Friendly has been trained to look for things like this and use them as a shortcut to finding crime. Why? Because (as his supervisors well know) he is stupid, lazy, and impatient. So, they have to dumb down "crime fighting" to meet the lowest common denominator. Also, his ticket book is his sales quota; maybe not officially for his chief or lieutenant, but certainly for his union boss. And drug busts look great on that resume, as he's frequently reminded. If a forcefully asked question makes this motorist nervous enough to say something self-incriminating, what harm is a little oath-abrogation, right?
And most people, bless their little hearts, really believe that this kind of state-sponsored terrorism leads to more personal security. So, they bleat out just comply, dammit...like the precious lambs they are. There are participants in this thread whose bread is buttered by the state, and so their defense of Officer Friendly is no surprise. The rest of you? Do you really expect a frontal assault on your rights, rather than the tyrant picking off the lowest hanging fruit? The outrage is not why is she being non-compliant; the outrage is why aren't you? Questioning authority sounds all noble, but it ain't. Question obedience.
Our resident apologist above thinks that what's "reasonable" should be left to the judgement of Officer Friendly. The gentlemen who wrote the 4th Amendment specifically would not agree, and foresaw the likely abuse.
*One post far upthread said that there was no doubt her brake-lights were faulty. Actually, there is no evidence of this. There is exactly the same amount of evidence that Officer Friendly fabricated that story as a prelude to sexually assaulting the woman. Ain't saying that's what happened, just saying that it's just as possible as his "official" report.
- Information delivery, or
- Fishing expedition
Now, Officer Friendly has been trained to look for things like this and use them as a shortcut to finding crime. Why? Because (as his supervisors well know) he is stupid, lazy, and impatient. So, they have to dumb down "crime fighting" to meet the lowest common denominator. Also, his ticket book is his sales quota; maybe not officially for his chief or lieutenant, but certainly for his union boss. And drug busts look great on that resume, as he's frequently reminded. If a forcefully asked question makes this motorist nervous enough to say something self-incriminating, what harm is a little oath-abrogation, right?
And most people, bless their little hearts, really believe that this kind of state-sponsored terrorism leads to more personal security. So, they bleat out just comply, dammit...like the precious lambs they are. There are participants in this thread whose bread is buttered by the state, and so their defense of Officer Friendly is no surprise. The rest of you? Do you really expect a frontal assault on your rights, rather than the tyrant picking off the lowest hanging fruit? The outrage is not why is she being non-compliant; the outrage is why aren't you? Questioning authority sounds all noble, but it ain't. Question obedience.
Our resident apologist above thinks that what's "reasonable" should be left to the judgement of Officer Friendly. The gentlemen who wrote the 4th Amendment specifically would not agree, and foresaw the likely abuse.
*One post far upthread said that there was no doubt her brake-lights were faulty. Actually, there is no evidence of this. There is exactly the same amount of evidence that Officer Friendly fabricated that story as a prelude to sexually assaulting the woman. Ain't saying that's what happened, just saying that it's just as possible as his "official" report.
Last edited:
OP
Duh! Of COURSE police officers look for other infractions during a traffic stop! IT'S WHAT THEY DO!
Pull someone over for speeding, look through the windows of the vehicle. Smell the driver's breath, if opportunity arises. Ask some questions.
Any probable cause for something comes up, the traffic stop turns into something else. This is a no-brainer.
And as to how to handle any given stop...a lot of it is the officer's discression. He might just say "please get your brakes fixed"; he might run plates, registration, license check; he might issue a trafgic citation on the lights; he might issue a verbal or written warning...any number of things, as he sees fit. All of which are perfectly legal.
But it's pretty apparent that this lady was INSISTING on GIVING the officers something to make a big deal out of.
Popcorn time.
Pull someone over for speeding, look through the windows of the vehicle. Smell the driver's breath, if opportunity arises. Ask some questions.
Any probable cause for something comes up, the traffic stop turns into something else. This is a no-brainer.
And as to how to handle any given stop...a lot of it is the officer's discression. He might just say "please get your brakes fixed"; he might run plates, registration, license check; he might issue a trafgic citation on the lights; he might issue a verbal or written warning...any number of things, as he sees fit. All of which are perfectly legal.
But it's pretty apparent that this lady was INSISTING on GIVING the officers something to make a big deal out of.
Popcorn time.
- Status