User Panel
Quoted:
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? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: 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. Does that mean we should do it? |
|
You suck at being a "sovereign citizen" when you have to Google search all the lingo and catchphrases.
|
|
Quoted:
The amount of fugitives with felony warrants and other criminals pulled over for traffic stops is staggering. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I for one am glad Tahlequah has solved all of its other crime problems and can devote multiple officers and emergency personnel to petty traffic stops. 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 |
|
|
Quoted:
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? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: 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. Does that mean we should do it? LOL. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted:
Very professional behavior on the part of the officers. I don't think I heard anyone drop the f-bomb or even utter an unkind word. I applaud their conduct. And they were more than patient with the sovereign citizen. View Quote I feel weird agreeing with Dan_cooper twice in as many days. |
|
I never argue the law or the facts at the side of the road. I'll ask three times for you to provide your correct information either in the form of a drivers license or verbally so I can check the computer with photo. After number three, and still being evasive, I'll just arrest and let the jail and court figure it out. I'll also throw in an obstructing charge for the fun of it all.
|
|
Quoted:
The SC movement is a conspiracy by the auto glass manufacturers to sale more car windows . I'm shocked at the police not having a small cheap metal center punch that could pop a window with ease and doesn't cost 5bux and don't weigh anything. View Quote Is this piccolo's or aimless's second account? |
|
Quoted:
Nice how to video on turning a simple ticket into an arrest View Quote 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 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.
|
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote |
|
Do you suppose that ANY sovereign citizen EVER got away with this foolishness and got out of a ticket?
If not, why do they keep doing it? |
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
Do you suppose that ANY sovereign citizen EVER got away with this foolishness and got out of a ticket? If not, why do they keep doing it? View Quote |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Do you suppose that ANY sovereign citizen EVER got away with this foolishness and got out of a ticket? If not, why do they keep doing it? View Quote |
|
Quoted:
do they really need the fire dept to bust the window? don't all LEO have a baton thingy? View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted:
No, it isn't. You don't have to argue. You don't even have to reply. But you're wrong. Google it. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I’ve had a seatbelt stop. I’ve had the taillight out stop. They never ticket me for it once the license is valid and there aren’t any warrants. Lots of big crimes are caught through chicken shit stops like this. View Quote Sounds reasonable. |
|
Quoted: It pre dates google and the internet. I guess you were in the same room as I was when the lobbyists were asking for our support for these laws and explaining the long and short of it to us, in person. Maybe we just had a different interpretation of what they plainly said to those of us who were in the room. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted:
So? Free market would have supplied new insurance providers or providers would have raised costs. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
On the way to pull this guy over for a chickens#it seat belt violation. This officer likely passed by a dead hooker in a ditch next to the local truck stop, two meth labs, 1500 illegal aliens working at the local meat packing plant, a cartel human trafficking ring and a city council member molesting a minor. The juice is not worth the squeeze messing with these folks, we have much bigger problems to deal with nowdays. From what I can tell these folks just want to be left alone. Maybe the police should focus on serious problems like 30 million illegal aliens here violating every law under the sun and the out of control violence in every major inner city. How about opening investigations on all these damn crooked politicians. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Have any of those SC idiots ever been even mildly successful? View Quote |
|
Quoted:
What everyone is missing here is that if the guy had just showed him license and ins, he would have probably said "Have a nice day and be sure to wear your seatbelt". Well, at least until he found out about the warrant.... My SIL is a GSP trooper and he said he would never ticket a good driver for not wearing the belt. Just a warning. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
So? Free market would have supplied new insurance providers or providers would have raised costs. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted:
I wear my seat belt everywhere and did so long before the law went into effect, but I explicitly remember when they were becoming mandatory, every politician and police agency saying the law would not ever be used to pull people over and... LOL at sovereign citizens View Quote Every new law that can be abused is always pushed with " but you can trust us..." Then the predictable " thing we won't do" is justified by " but just look at all the criminals we've caught". Apply this to several proposed bills currently being pushed, if you disagree. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted: Maybe, maybe not. Someone still has to underwrite those policies. You tell Joe voter that we need a seatbelt law or nationwide etc is doubling your insurance rates or not insure you at all. What sane legislator is going to fight this. In Ohio it sailed through without much opposition. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote |
|
Quoted: I have no idea about new Hampshire. I know what was presented in person to the Ohio FOP. You really seem to get worked up about very trivial things. View Quote 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? |
|
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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? |
|
Quoted:
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? View Quote |
|
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.
|
|
|
Quoted: Because I'm not wrong. I relayed what I personally witnessed. You do however seem to follow me around a good bit though, why is that? View Quote 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? |
|
Quoted:
Do you suppose that ANY sovereign citizen EVER got away with this foolishness and got out of a ticket? If not, why do they keep doing it? View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: It pre dates google and the internet. I guess you were in the same room as I was when the lobbyists were asking for our support for these laws and explaining the long and short of it to us, in person. Maybe we just had a different interpretation of what they plainly said to those of us who were in the room. View Quote You just said you weren't going to argue, but yet you continue. |
|
Quoted:
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? View Quote |
|
Quoted: You just said you weren't going to argue, but yet you continue. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: Again, that's an academic argument but Joe voter will nearly always vote with his wallet. Maybe he can't afford his insurance doubling or something and the seatbelt is free with the car sooooo. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
What everyone is missing here is that if the guy had just showed him license and ins, he would have probably said "Have a nice day and be sure to wear your seatbelt". Well, at least until he found out about the warrant.... My SIL is a GSP trooper and he said he would never ticket a good driver for not wearing the belt. Just a warning. View Quote |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.