In this thread, very few seem to understand broken windows policing.

Also, no pun intended.

If you’ve ever seen someone cut in half from a rolled suv or had a body fly out of a window get run over and cause a second fatal accident you might change your idea on seat belts. We put toddlers in car seats because they kept flying out of cars. We had a dude cut in half by a tree not long ago after he flew off a motorcycle. Shit happens everyday.

Now if you get killed from not wearing your seatbelt I don’t don’t care. The fire department sprinkles kitty litter over the bloody spot and washes what doesn’t fit into the body bag off the side of the road. I do however get a little upset when the dead asshole that didn’t want to wear his seatbelt gets another person killed or injured. Wear your seatbelt.

Friend of mine solved a murder by getting a stolen gun on a traffic stop last week. Broken tail light was the stop. Don’t try to educate GD. It’s impossible.

LoL

As has been noted, your airborne dead carcass can cause other accidents and property damage.
If you do not like the traffic laws, you are free to not utilize the public roads and highways.

You really do have to be mind numbingly stupid to disobey a police officers commands, especially when they tell you EXACTLY what they are going to do.  Its not like they are just going to be like "oh hey, good point about that articles of confederation thing" and walk away.  Even if the police are WRONG and you are RIGHT, its better for you to just go along with it and have your day in front of the judge.

No, it can't. Stop wringing your hands.

People not wearing seatbelts on motorcycles must really trigger you

My body, my choice?

Your map of hills to die on is extremely inaccurate.

Do you expect an ambulance and money expended to save your body when you get in a wreck?

If you want to be a sovereign citizen fine. But the person you need to argue the law with, is the judge, not the cop.

I found that to be an interesting question so I looked up my state, Arizona, and we do have a "Stop and Identify" law. It is in law that a driver of a motor vehicle has consented to surrender ID to LEO during a traffic stop as part of the contract of driving on Arizona roads.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/01595.htm

Why and how is a local cop going to enforce federal law?

How is an fbi guy going to enforce Texas traffic code?

Why isn’t the epa going after bank fraud?

Same thing

But I remember very vividly when they first proposed the seat belt laws in my state. "It will only be a secondary ticket. We'll never make it a primary offense." Well it is now. Same with "gun control."

I rolled a Volvo 142S at 75 MPH, ( yes it IS possible to get that little box going that fast), rolled 7 times, and walked away without a scratch, partially due to the seat belt, partially due to it being a Volvo. I believe in seat belts.

LOL, what a waste of time.

That is a bullshit ticket.

But goddamn, sovereign citizen videos never get old.

Google wouldn't translate this, can you phrase it another way so I can understand your message?

So you believe that rather than taking the time to look up the verbage of the law, or have someone else look it up for him while he's dealing with the driver, it's better for the officer to remain ignorant and operate solely on his belief of what the law actually says?

Your example of "first amendment auditors" only reinforces why the officers should actually know the laws they seek to enforce, or at least know where to find them or who to ask when needed.

Don't you think being able to accurately quote and explain the law to the auditor might help show that you are in the right? Don't you think that would look more professional in a YouTube video than trying to make up laws as you go, and looking like a jack-booted thug in the process?

Seriously, watch some of these "first amendment auditor" videos. The vast majority of the time, some ignorant officer starts trying to tell the auditor what they can or cannot do, without actually knowing what the law really says. Do any of these sound familiar?

"You're not allowed to film a police officer. That's illegal."

"You're not allowed to film here on a public sidewalk."

"You're not allowed to record people without their permission."

"You're not allowed to open carry that weapon."

"You need to provide your identification when told to."

"Refusing to provide your identification is obstruction of justice."

"Stop resisting. You're resisting."

I've seen plenty of examples on YouTube of officers trying to BS and bully their way into making people comply with what they think the law is, regardless of what the law actually says. They often seem to operate solely on what they feel is right or wrong, with no legal basis to back up their emotionally charged opinions or orders. If you don't do what they say when they say it, you're wrong and you're under arrest.

That's presuming they don't break your arm or beat you over the head with a tazer for disrespecting their authority...  After all, they're a police officer; of course they know what the laws are.

I've personally had a police officer try to buffalo me by threatening to charge me with "failure to assist a peace officer" because I wasn't telling him what he wanted to hear. After politely telling him that he was incorrect, and explaining what the law actually says, there was a long pause as I could hear him over the phone flipping through his little law book, desperately trying to look up the law he just pulled out of his ass because it sounded intimidating...

He had absolutely no clue what the law actually said or meant, yet he was more than willing to threaten me with it, trying to use it as a weapon to intimidate me.

Rather than choosing to remain ignorant of the law, like you are espousing, why shouldn't the officer treat these encounters as an opportunity to better educate themselves and see for themselves exactly what the law actually says, rather than continue to operate solely on what they think the law says.

Why would you defend the decision to deliberately remain ignorant, when given the opportunity to educate yourself?

Lol.

Wut.

Picking seatbelts to fight the oppressors is quite the hill to die on. As unintelligent as I am, even I can understand you have to pick and choose your battles wisely.

He’s saying “Bless your heart.”

the hill to die on was the first one. Using seat belts to collect taxes at gun point is waaaaay down the list from not lynching Woodrow Wilson.

Lol...nobody here is saying SC or seatbelts is the hill to die on.

Rather hall monitors who use seatbelts to pull people over

Must be that CO weed

I believe almost every state has a similar law requiring you to provide your driver's license upon request when operating a motor vehicle, but many states do not require identification under other circumstances, such as when you are walking down the street.

This is where most of the police officers in the first amendment auditor videos mess up; they think the person has to provide identification, yet don't take the time to look it up to be certain.

The driver in the video was trying to look things up on the fly, but most "auditors" have done considerable research into what the law actually says, and what they legally can and cannot do. That's why they are able to make these ignorant officers look like baffoons time and time again; they know the laws and the officers don't.

When I first got my CHL, I poured over the Oregon Revised Statutes to make sure I knew exactly what the law said, rather than take someone else's word for it.  I found many enlightening things buried within the text of the statutes. This was how I happened to know the actual meaning of "failure to assist a peace officer", which was nowhere near what the officer thought it meant.

Seriously, how hard is it to ask Dispatch or another officer to look up the law for them while they handle the stop, rather than just winging it based on their imperfect memory and understanding of a bazillion different laws?

I'm not suggesting they have to memorize every single law on the books, but it would certainly behoove them to know how to look them up as needed.

On the other hand, if you can show the police officer exactly what the law says, shouldn't that be enough?

I've had to argue and explain laws with both police officers and game wardens, where the law was on my side despite what they thought the law said.

Had I not known where to find the law to show them I was correct, things might have turned out differently.

Why they don't do the same thing.when the law is in question baffles me to no end.

A good example of being a 'law enforcement' officer vs. a peace officer.

A 'law enforcement' officer is obsessed with arbitrary regulations. He cannot let go that the man had ignored this asinine little regulation despite the fact that he had not committed any genuine crimes. Because of his obsessive insistence (mirroring that of the man he had pulled over), he had to waste all the other officers' and firefighters' time, and open them up to the possibility of getting sued or fired or injured.

A peace officer would have seen that the man was not a danger to other motorists, not breaking any meaningful laws, and simply let him go. He has better things to do than to argue with a difficult person who is really no threat to anyone but himself. He wouldn't have pulled him over for not wearing a seat belt in the first place, because that is an unjust law.

There are far too many 'law enforcement' officers in the USA, and not enough peace officers.

They WILL write you a ticket in Mi. Hell, occasionally they stand on a street corner with a stop sign or light and radio ahead for a cruiser to stop you when they do a sting.

Easy $$$$$$.

Both the top cops and legasslatures swore it would never, EVER be a primary offense. That lasted until the second it was passed.

I should have been more specific, sorry. We have the motor vehicle law but also a Stop and Identify law that states any person awfully detained must provide a truthful name, and giving a false name is a crime. However that statute also states that the person detained does not have to give any more than that. The few websites I saw said this is name and/or ID, but that's not what I read in the law. Personally, the side of the road is not where to argue a ticket, gets you nowhere.

Pun intended?



As for arguing alongside the road, it's possible if you know the laws well enough, but it requires that the officer you are dealing with isn't a pompous, arrogant ass that thinks he knows the law better than you do.

As I mentioned earlier, I've had similar discussions before with both police officers and game wardens, but the law was on my side and they were reasonable enough to accept that they were wrong once I showed them the actual law.

A big part of it is how both sides approach the discussion. Being polite and respectful goes a long way, especially when you're trying to tell an authority figure that they are wrong...

How do you feel about gun laws?

Turn 'em in or pay for being stupid, right?

I was anti-seatbelt law until I saw some videos of people doing lane changing maneuvers without them. Above 35mph the driver ends up in the passenger seat, car out of control.

Kind of like that one boat video, right?

Back in the 80’s there was a report on how cops were having accidents and the cause was not wearing seat belts. Mostly bench seats back then. I started driving around 1980 and as student drivers we were really pushed to wear seat belts, it seemed like it was a new thing. About the same time Arrive Alive started. It was like parents didn’t want drunk driving to be a sport anymore.

These SC guys? I don’t get it. Who thinks they are just driving away from that. Idiots.

Yep, I could never do it.....

Let alone shoot, taze, sic the dog on, pummel......

This X  a 1000. We are slowly morphing into a police state. Just wait until we lose 2020 or 24 and we get one of these leftist lunatics in power with a majority. Most of what we own firearm wise will be contraband. Many LEOs will have no issues enforcing these unconstitutiona laws on us.

Dangerous times ahead for freedom loving Americans.

That cop is a saint.

Oh, yes, the cop was "choosing" to remain ignorant, and not just dealing with an extremely absurd situation arising from a very typical interaction.

You're making a lot of assumptions that this officer didn't know anything about the law because of... reasons? Yes, the driver has to surrender ID. That was never in question. Now, when some sovereign idiot starts making up court cases from 1857 in an attempt to baffle you with bullshit- which is 99% of their game- are you going to stop and see how the Dred Scott decision actually doesn't have a paragraph relating to the right of a free man wearing a gold flag on his person to travel without obstruction by the pigs? This is not a particularly complicated matter, and you're conflating whatever implied slight some cop did to you with this occasion.

Also, the "first amendment auditors" here will typically attempt to do everything possible to provoke a response. The brainiac we've currently got enjoys randomly walking up to them and just insulting them or cussing them out, which is generally low brow even for their type. They're not attempting to "audit" anything, they're just making scenes for youtube and patreon.

You were literally advocating for local cops to start busting up chicken packing plants and enforce federal law in this thread. What's it like to have a mindset so incredibly inconsistent as yours?

Lol

No

Oh for God's sake... that was an every day occurrence as a Correctional Officer, where's my medal?

edit:  Why the hell did the FD roll in hot?  Or did they just kick it on as they rolled up to clear their entry to the scene?

If there were mandatory check points with finger prints and iris scans at the entrance to every neighborhood that you had to submit to before leaving, those would net even more criminals.

Does that mean we should do it?

Fishing. Lots of folks like fishing. Heck there are at least 3 Saturday morning radio shows devoted to it in my AO.

Instead of playing games with the driver and going back and forth with the "Show ID & Insurance" / "No, 5th Amendment" argument they were having, imagine if the officer simply read and discussed the law with the driver.

Here's a hypothetical scenario:

"Sir, the law clearly states that you must provide your driver's license and proof of insurance when requested. It's right here in Statute ABC.123, and the penalty for failure to comply is a Class A misdemeanor, as well as a fine for up to $1,000.

If you continue to refuse to provide your license and insurance, I will be forced to arrest you and take you to jail, and your car will be impounded in the process.

Once again sir, please provide your driver's license and proof of insurance."

Instead, you get arguments like we saw in the video, where they just go back and forth with" You have to!" and "No I don't!"...

You yourself said that there's no way an officer can know all the laws he might have to deal with, yet for some reason you seem to be against the idea of looking up and verifying exactly what the law says.

You seem to think everyone should just take the officer's word for it, despite your previous statement that he can't know all of the laws by heart.

Why in the world would you be against the idea of explaining the law in question, rather than just telling people they have to do exactly what you say, because you said so, or else...

Are you that afraid to look up and discuss the laws with someone, for fear of showing that you don't know as much about the law as you thought you did?

It sure seems that way to me.

Fine by me.

Your concern is noted.

People bitch about overreach over government agencies.

Unless its something they want done...

It always is.