Not super familiar with case law and the 4th amendment are ya?

You suck at being a "sovereign citizen" when you have to Google search all the lingo and catchphrases.

And if they are going to jail, they might as well go for a ton of stuff, not just one or two things. Go big or go home.

The same as racial profiling being a feedback loop, if you believe you're going to be racially profiled, you might as well drive like as asshole since you're getting pulled over anyway, and if everyone in a particular group always drives like assholes, more of them get pulled over.

Kharn

Non-Sequitur.

This thread went from simple motor vehicle violations to roadside eyeball scanners.

LOL.

Maybe it'll really blow your mind to find out that you don't even have to tell someone what they're being arrested for in most states. You have a very odd view of what an officer's duties are, and entertaining the frequently bizarre legal defenses that people will invent is not the job of the officer- you can detain or arrest on reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and the details can and will be sorted later. If you want lawyers for cops, you're going to need to pay a lot more. It's one thing to be familiar with the law, which we can agree is a reasonable expectation. This officer was doubtlessly familiar with the law, despite your implication that he was not. It's another to drag out the statute and recite it to the accused the second some indiscretion takes place. That's cool if you can, I guess. Ideally arrests (and citations) are fast, to the point, and as cordial as situations allow. Does a cop have a responsibility to review case law? Appeals decisions? There's always considerations that run deeper than just the statute.

You're really dancing around the point, though- there are a lot of fucking laws on the books, too many. You don't have a guy on notice to look up the laws and statute number at everyone's request the second they ask, either. Whipping out your cell phone and looking up the GS for every offense while attempting to detain someone who is in a vehicle is also not practical. And for the vast majority of seatbelt tickets, you tell the guy to put on his seatbelt and send him on his way.

And be honest here- whether the officer was able to recite the statute to the letter, would that have gained any more compliance? It would certainly not. There would have been zero effective difference, and the cop was enforcing the law completely correctly, including up to the point where he had to arrest some moron for continued noncompliance over a seatbelt ticket.

Again, it is not the officer's job to argue points of the law with the people they interact with. You may take offense with "because I say so", and through your own posts because you are still extremely butthurt about some situation in your own past where it seems like you got into an argument with some cop over some minute detail of the law that you probably researched thoroughly before attempting to grill him on.

But yeah, as cool as living in a society where politely debating the legality of the weed you got caught with during your seatbelt stop might be, that's not where we are, and you can be as idealistic as you want online, but your opinions aren't important and they aren't how law enforcement will operate.

The two most impressive things to me about that video:

1) The patience of the police officer
2) The durability of the window glass

I've taken out plenty of auto glass over the years using either a Halligan or a spring loaded punch. It's rare to encounter a window that can stand up to a Halligan that way.

Agreed 100%.

I feel weird agreeing with Dan_cooper twice in as many days.

Nice how to video on turning a simple ticket into an arrest

lol

Is this piccolo's or aimless's second account?

That's what always mystifies me about these videos.

The sovtards seem to live in their own little fantasy world.

Sovtard fantasy:
Cop: License and registration please
Sovtard: Am I being detained?
Cop: License and registration please
Sovtard: I'm not driving, I'm traveling. I'm a section 8 article 5 free inhabitant, so I'm leaving now
Cop: Oh! My mistake! Have a great day!

Sovtard reality:
Cop: License and registration please
Sovtard: Am I being detained?
Cop: Yes

Twenty eight minutes of bullshit later...

SMASH! Cuffed and stuffed, tased and splayed, or snapped and capped

Presto! The most expensive ticket ever

I like how a lot of this thread is people bitching about LE instead of the voters that elected the representatives that made the law that the cops have to enforce.

Not true.  

Well the videos over 15 minutes long so obviously he was patient.

No, it isn't.    You don't have to argue.   You don't even have to reply.   But you're wrong.   Google it.

So? Free market would have supplied new insurance providers or providers would have raised costs.

I think the hope and dream is that if you get an officer to screw up and do something unconstitutional on camera you win the lottery. That is what a lot of the rifle open carry guys do as well. Other than a handful of true believers most people are trolling for a lawsuit win or a settlement.

We've never been called to bust a window and unless there's some immediate life threat inside the vehicle we're not going to. Cops have batons and should have window punches or should pick some up because they can be had for three bucks. Those firefighters should also have punches also and probably did but that's not as fun I guess.

The only time time I can recall being called to assist on a forceable entry was on a "fortified" shed on a property they had a warrant to search as part of a murder investigation.

The Civil War predates Google and yet I can read about the battle of Gettysburg all day long.

Did you know there is at least one state that doesn't require adults to buckle up?   I guess they are driving around without insurance.

Saw this parked in downtown Saint Louis last week. Pretty ballsy driving around the city with a homemade plate.

They never have insurance so if you get hit by one you're on your own. I'm perfectly ok with cops "harassing" them.

In court.....never. On the side of the road occasionally. I've seen one video where an older cop who probably just didn't give a shit anymore let one go after five minutes of retarded arguments. Probably nearing shift change and he just didn't want to deal with it.

ISP will write on seatbelts all day long. They'll find three or four more things to write on while they've got you there.

Why blame the insurance companies?   Contrary to what he said, they weren't responsible for seat belts and seat belt laws nationwide.

The subject is far more complicated than that.

FFS seat belts are not required in New Hampshire and a simple google search shows their insurance rates on par with what I am paying now.

If Joe voter is willing to give away his freedom to save a few bucks on his car insurance he loses the ability to complain when he gets pulled over for not wearing it. Personally that is yet another reason for Joe voter to not have the ability to vote, but that is another discussion.

Exactly, you have no idea about New Hampshire because you don't know the history of seat belts or seat belt laws.   Seriously, Google it because there is plenty of information out there.

Oh and you seem to get upset quite easily when people point out when you say things that are wrong.   I am curious, why is that?

+1

the whole time i am watching it i am like "ida busted that shit out 10 minutes ago", then i wouldn't have nothing to watch.

For what it's worth, I have never attempted to grill a police officer on the law, trying to catch them in a "Gotcha!" scenario. I am not a sovereign citizen, nor am I a first amendment auditor.

I am simply a man who likes to read and research, and generally has a pretty good comprehension and retention of what I've read, especially if it interests me.

In my encounters that I mentioned, the first instance was an officer trying to threaten and intimidate me with a law that he thought sounded appropriate, but in actuality was not even close to what he thought it meant. After calling him out on it, he looked it up and then immediately dropped the subject, not even having the decency to admit that he was mistaken.

Regarding the game warden, he stopped me because I was hunting with an AR, and then tried to accuse me of violating the state's magazine capacity restrictions for hunting. I had to actually look the regulations up in the synopsis for him and show it to him, as he was adamant that he knew the laws better than I did. Again, just a quick change of subject after I showed him the actual law, without so much as a simple "Sorry, my mistake."

Recently I was stopped for speeding, and had to explain to the officer that what he claimed was not only incorrect, but impossible under the circumstances. I knew this for a fact, as I happened to be parked alongside the road looking at a map when he went by, a full half-mile from where he claimed to have caught me speeding. After explaining the situation to him, he was at least willing to admit that he may have been mistaken, and possibly remembers seeing something parked exactly where I explained I was. Apparently my vehicle was a similar color to the vehicle he had seen speeding, and it was simply a case of mistaken identity. He was the most professional of the three, and was the only one willing to admit that he was wrong.

(Interestingly enough, he commented on but did not seem concerned about the rifle I had leaning against the passenger seat. He was the only one of the three that didn't try to immediately treat me like a criminal, and for that he has my gratitude and respect.)

In all three scenarios, the only thing that kept me from being charged with a crime I didn't commit was my ability to calmly, clearly, and politely discuss the situation with them.

Based on what you've said, you seem to think that I should have just taken their word for it each time, as they are the experts, and they had no obligation to even bother discussing the situation with me. They should have just written me the ticket, and then it would be my responsibility to explain it to the judge. Does that sum it up?

What I don't understand is why you seem to be so against the idea of a reasonable discourse regarding the law, and instead think that people should simply have to take the officer's word for it, just because they are the police officer and they said so.

If I have a question regarding the law I am being accused of breaking, it seems extremely reasonable to me that I should be able to ask details about the law in question, so that we can discuss it like civilized adults. Instead, you seem to think that I should be required to cooperate with the officer and blindly accept the ticket, because it's not his job to argue the law with me; the very same law that he has just accused me of breaking.

I know that my scenarios are extremely non-typical compared to the average encounters that officers deal with daily, but they have certainly shaped the way I perceive and interact with the police. I am extremely civil and polite at all times, but I don't hesitate to ask questions when something doesn't seem right to me. Officers are not infallible, and neither am I, which is why I prefer to go directly to the text of the law in question.

I don't think it's too much to ask of an officer to take a few extra minutes out of his day to help clarify any questions I may have regarding the law in question, especially if I'm being accused of breaking it.

Do you think that's too much to ask?

Have these sovereign citizens not seen these videos?  Has there ever been a single one that went in the SC's favor?  Somehow I doubt it.

You said  "Blame the insurance companies. They went to the legislatures and made it clear that if seatbelt laws were not enacted, they would refuse to write policies in that state."

You can buy car insurance in New Hampshire.    That means you're wrong.

I don't follow you around, at all.   I found this thread, read this thread to the end, and found a  post that I thought would be interesting to respond to.

If you don't like what I say, you can ignore it if you like.

Hell, I've ignored lots of posts from lots of people, including you.

Again you appear to get really upset when someone corrects you.  Why is that?

They watched some youtube video and thought "I want to be a dork just like that guy!".

Meanwhile, they're happy to drive on OUR roads and bridges.  I guess it's selective sovereignty.

That said, I don't like the whole idea of seatbelt laws for drivers, and adult passengers.  Helmet laws either.  They're counter to the freedom that comes with personal responsibility and the resulting consequences, IMO.

You just said you weren't going to argue, but yet you continue.

I hate these kinds of threads because while I have nothing but disdain for sovereign citizen types, I hate mandatory seat belt laws and other feel good bullshit.

If you want to educate people as to the safest way to operate a motor vehicle, that's one thing.

Using it as an excuse for revenue generation and probable cause for other actions is another.

The officer in the OP was very patient but, again, that act shouldn't justify a lawful stop.   It does, of course, but it shouldn't.  

I would argue that requiring Joe to have insurance in the first place instead of being personally responsible for his actions is another stupid thing Joe voter did.

Yeah I got a ticket for no seatbelt while I was sitting in traffic at a stop light by a Texas DPS (Trooper).