That’s the part that makes me laugh, ‘argue it in court’. Even if they’re wrong and you’re right. No biggie, right? Just take a day off and go to court while they get paid to go to court and make us explain to yet another person that they’re wrong.

Maybe one day you'll get over that time you really stuck it to some cop on the phone about some eccentric part of your state's concealed carry law. Probably not, though.

Late to the party on this one.

You could see after the first or second sentence that sounded like the SC bullshit, the cop took long pauses...I'm sure he was thinking, "I don't feel like dealing with this shit today."  

This idiot couldn't even soverign properly.  He had to bring up the idiots guidebook and read it.  Most of the others at least have the grand order of fundamentals memorized.

Cops will find a way to do whatever they want to do.  That is a fact.

But that is not the point.

The point is that the massive law breaking and corruption at top leveled even the FBI and the Clintons along with holder and fast and furious along with the whole idea that 15-20 million illegal aliens can somehow not be found and returned yet you can be ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt in your car with your state mandated insurance is ludicrous.

Edit I am not saying that Dumb ASS was in the right but the irony in the unequal enforcement of our laws is getting ridicules.

I don't think you understand that cops don't enforce federal law.

That, I believe, ended when the feds threatened to start withholding highway monies.

Of course he understands that state and local law enforcement can't enforce federal laws.   That isn't the point he is making.

The point he is making is that your average, ordinary, law-abidingish American gets a bit jaded and pissed when they see serious crimes go ignored or willfully unenforced while John Q. Public gets the book thrown at him; especially for trivial bullshit such as driving without a seat belt.

How on earth did you miss that?  

More GSD interaction needed.

Sad,but he votes too!

Yep. Anyone with a lick of police experience knows this. The man responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing was apprehended because of a false tag.

Yep. People upset with this stop have no clue how many stolen guns, burglars, etc. have been found. Most stops result in warnings.

I guarentee GD would be supportive of this stop if THEIR stolen gun was located in the car.

I don't support seat belt violations or many of the voluminous laws that exist by which officers are justified in engaging in fishing expeditions (such as driving under the speed limit or driving while "looking concerned").

It doesn't matter one bit whether or not you could use those methods to find someone who theoretically wronged me.

As to people having no clue how many stolen guns, burglars, etc..., have been found from such stops; neither do you because that data, as far as I know, doesn't exist.

A basic understanding of math would tell me that if police stop/search/fish an incredibly large volume of people, they are most likely going to find/catch a large number of criminals and contraband.

That isn't magic; it's basic common reasoning.

There's so many dimensions of retardation in this... it's a multi-spectral kaleidoscope of fucktardation.

Idiotic law?  Check.

Fucktard picking a stupid hill to die one?  Check.

Butthurt cop flexing his muscle over said idiotic law?  Check.

So the purpose of seatbelt laws isn't to ensure people wear seatbelts... but rather to give cops an excuse to pull people over?

I'm glad to see people are finally recognizing that fact, lol.

I have always wondered...….if these Sovereign's really DO NOT believe or recognize the power of the police then...…...why do they even pull over?

Average John A Public is ignorant of the laws and how they work.

This thread proves that.

As are many in law enforcement.   That's the nature of the beast when your statutes are as massive and voluminous as ours are while being constantly updated and expanded.

There are more than a few situations where cops don't understand what the law says and just arrest the person only to let the courts sort it out.  Oddly enough, or maybe not, that sentiment, or one close to it, has been expressed in this thread.

Edit:  More to his point which you missed, or just ignored, when someone actually takes the time to read the law, to study the law, understand the law, and abide by the letter of that law only to be subsequently arrested by an officer who hasn't read the law, doesn't know the law, and doesn't care to try, only to be released later once an officer with an IQ above room temperature gets his hands on it or once the courts have sorted it out, that leaves a bad taste in a person's mouth.

You may not have experienced that however other people have.

Uh huh.

Read this post again.

I’ve wondered that too....best guess is they’ve been prepping for this argument for months and can’t wait to be the first SC to actually win.

I did.  Several times.

Would you like to know how I know you either didn't read or understand what I wrote in response?

Naaahh. Don't care.

 I would say I am surprised but that wouldn't be accurate.  

So you've gone in this thread from complaining about the nature of seatbelt tickets to tying that to officers not understanding the law to unjust arrests.

It's like the people in this thread throw anything they can, no matter how stupid, at any law enforcement. I don't even know how your posts have come around to this sort of tangent- the guy was pulled over for a seatbelt ticket and resisted multiple- as in DOZENS- of lawful commands.

Boohoo mean patrol cop on a fishing expedition. The guy could have handed over his license (if he had one), told the cop he could not search his vehicle if he had asked, and been on his way in about 2 minutes. Much like the other guy in this thread who has somehow got an idea that a cop is going to have a debate on constitutional law before arresting him, it doesn't even make sense where you're coming from here, complaining about cops not knowing the law. This discussion has become so schizophrenic that everyone is talking at cross points, and my own posts to the subject have not helped that, either.

If it was a thread about a cop "smelling pot" busting out his window, and not finding anything, I'd understand. But, generally speaking, the sort of law that involves traffic stops is not really that complicated in most places.

Cops are going to fish on traffic stops. The laws of the road are generally extremely simple, and almost always easy to follow. The people talking about "may your chains rest lightly" when someone suggests they stay within 10 mph of the speed limit and wear a seatbelt just look like whackos.

And when John Q Public with a clean record makes a slip up, the vast majority of the time, he's going to get a warning or a 5 over ticket. Because traffic enforcement is absolutely part of the job for patrol officers, and that is what they are going to do, but nobody really likes doing traffic stops for stupid bullshit and they just want to make it as simple and reasonable of an interaction as possible.

Regarding your earlier quote towards my post regarding federal law enforcement by cops, it's a stupid sentiment that multiple posters in the thread have wanted cops to enforce immigration law, which they cannot. Is it frustrating to see corruption in high government? Absolutely, but that has about as much to do with how a beat cop operates as the administration of NASA does.

Wow, this thread is almost as interesting as the linked video.

Getting pulled over for a seatbelt infraction is something of a debate.  I agree more questionable infractions go unchallenged many times. I can name numerous here in WA that just make me cringe.

However, the Sovereign Citizen was simply inept and naive.  It's my guess that if he simply showed his DL and insurance, he may have easily gotten off with a simple warning.  Playing stupid games, as he did, really had no other outcome.  Did he really think the officer would just say forget it and drive off?

IMHO, simply be polite and provide DL and Insurance.  Fight it out in court if you wish, but you will never win in a roadside confrontation.

We are all grownups, I hope.  Life is not always fare, but no circus either.  Fighting with law enforcement on the side of the road is always going to end badly.  Again, be polite and fight it in court if needed.

Just my opinion, YMMV.

All you had to say bro.

We know, which is why people don't like the ones that do. If cops are literally out to get us, I guess they're the ones that made it 'them against us'.... no complaining when people are against them to, right? Okay if everytime there is an officer involved shooting the public fishes for a reason to jam them up... right?

Cops aren't against you. You are against them. We know

  When you have cops saying "I am not going to argue the law with you" or something along those lines, it is relevant to mention there are officers who arrest people for laws they don't know, haven't read, and won't bother themselves to learn.

That happens.

That shouldn't be shocking given the fact the law is so massive and even clear statutes can be twisted and contorted via case law.

Yeah, they do that to attorneys, to judges, to politicians, to IRS employees/contractors, to actors, etc...; people do that.

What I don't see is a guild of plumbers bitching and moaning because people said mean or silly things about them.   Maybe they exist and I just missed their forum?

At any rate, I can't speak for the "people in this thread" however I can speak for myself when I say I have not done that here or anywhere else.

I judge people by what they say and what they do.  I love good cops and I despise bad, stupid cops.

If you took the time to actually read or understand what I wrote and the posts of those I quoted, you would understand how the subject came up.

Context matters.

That's called a conversation my friend.   They often times start on one subject or topic and then move and progress.
Yes, cops are going to fish.   Sometimes they are going to "smell pot" and then have a dog destroy the interior of your car as you wait.   Sometimes they are going to find illegal drugs that aren't illegal drugs and you are going to spend a considerable amount of time in jail waiting for the lab to come back and say "yeah, that was candy."

Sometimes they are just going to take your information, smile, wave, and leave you in peace only to swear out a warrant a week later for a crime they found that wasn't really a crime, and certainly wasn't one they knew of at the time, resulting in an arrest and and a conviction because the law was so damn complicated.

All of those are real examples, by the way.

The only people who say "Boohoo mean patrol cop on a fishing expedition" are the people who have no idea what could come from them or can't see themselves falling into one of those examples.

A person could think they are obeying the law or hell, they could be following it to the letter and still find themselves arrested or worse, convicted of a crime they didn't really commit from some b.s. fishing expedition.

Does it happen often?  I hope not but it does happen.
There is no such thing as "extremely simple" and "easy to follow" law and the only people who think otherwise are those who haven't taken the time to study it or the obscene case law that has invariably perverted it.

You can obey every observable law when it comes to driving your car and LEO will still be able to generate sufficient reasonable suspicion for a stop BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THE PERSON IS OBEYING THE LAW.

You can do everything "right" and still wind up arrested.

Does this happen often?  Probably not but it happens.

I have no problem with those officers who are just doing their jobs in a "simple and reasonable" manner.  I even commented earlier the officer in the OP was very patient (page 4).   I do have a problem with those laws but I blame the politicians and that voters first and foremost.

I do have a problem with fishing expeditions and the only people who don't are people who are ignorant of what the law says (that's everyone, by the way) or think they can't possibly be seen as violating the law whether they are or not.

It's the bullshit "I have nothing to hide so go ahead and look" argument.  Yes, you have something to hide whether you know it or not.

Do you even bother to read before you post?

He did not say that and what you posted is incredibly dishonest.  

You are confused. Stick to tax law. You don't understand criminal law.

I am confused about what?  My last post was pointing out the fact you claimed another poster said something when he clearly didn't which was unrelated to tax law, criminal law, or criminal tax law.

So, what, exactly, are you on about?

Point made. Stick to what you understand. Feel free to start a thread on tax law. I'll stay out of it.

What, exactly, have I posted here that was in error?   Be specific and show your work.

Don't worry, I'll wait.  

1 - Don't break traffic law and no traffic stop will occur. If you do not like the law, lobby for it to be changed. Until then, it is a perfectly legal traffic stop.

2 - It does exist. Follow this link regarding DDACTS from NHTSA. The article specifically indicates how traffic stops were the most effective way of reducing crime.

3 - I absolutely agree. More lawful traffic stops will lead to more lawful arrests and will overall reduce crime. So....what's the problem?

Heroes. I feel safer with all that crime being fought.

Cool. Glad we could be your heros. Everyone needs one.

No, I do care about seatbelt laws. Generally the lawful traffic stop and warning are enough to change the motorists behavior for a while. (will wear seat belt). I have been to a few fatality accidents that would've absolutely resulted in minor injuries IF the motorist wore their seatbelt. But if the law was removed, it wouldn't hurt my feelings either. I'm all for individual liberties and accepting the responsibility of your own choices (in this case, not wearing a seat belt), but it sure sucks notifying a family of their deceased family member when a seatbelt would've saved them.

Yeah, I like your sig line from Paul Howe. Great guy, and provides great training for Law Enforcement. Like most, I'm positive he'd disagree with your backwards opinion...

(Removed -40xb)

Good lord some of you and your persecution complexes are just super weird.

Yup, they are a special kind of stupid.

Jesus I have never seen so much drama llama in a thread lol.  Get the book thrown at him?  You mean for a $20 seat belt ticket or warning?  So much oppression!!  I guess cops are just everywhere ignoring armed robberies and such to go after those juicy seat belt ticket scores.

Well, you don't have to break a traffic law to be pulled over so that's nonsense off the bat.   There's ample case law justifying such stops so those are "legal" even if they are bullshit.

You know or ought to know this.


What exists?   The fact that officers catch criminals and find contraband during traffic stops?  That fact was never disputed.

Officers also catch criminals and find contraband during the normal course of their duties when not enforcing traffic laws.

I was commenting on the fact you that you said   "People upset with this stop have no clue how many stolen guns, burglars, etc. have been found. Most stops result in warnings"  when you have absolutely NO idea how many stolen guns or burglars are found in traffic stops or how how many stops results in warnings.

I strongly suspect you don't have that data.

Interestingly enough, without diving into the studies themselves, which I am very tempted to do, the data provided from the various studies cited in the NHTSA summary document don't provide that information either because they focus on citations issued or arrests made rather than total encounters or stops conducted.

Two things (I read the entire document, btw, all 30 pages):

First, that document does not say that.   At all.   The studies listed within that document do not say that.   At all.

That document is a sales pitch trying to get LEA to shift more resources into traffic enforcement which leads to my second point.

That document was prepared by the NHTSA.

This paragraph in the conclusion summaries the reason for this document and the push for more traffic enforcement:

Translation:  a federal bureaucracy that deals with traffic safety couldn't convince state and local law enforcement agencies to ramp up traffic enforcement with prior efforts that focused solely on safety so they tried to tie crime stopping to traffic enforcement to get what they wanted (page 23).

Agencies that increased police presence and activities in high crime areas saw a decrease in some crime and the take away for a federal agency that deals with traffic safety is that traffic enforcement was the cause of that decrease.

Talk about self-serving.

Well, at least they quoted enough of the studies for people to read to see what else went into those efforts (assuming they were read).
They will also increase revenue for the local governments which is the point in doing them.

More stops, deemed lawful or not, will also lead to more arrests that are inappropriate, at least in the eyes of those arrested, but deemed lawful as in being arrested and jailed for possessing candy that was mistaken for contraband or people arrested for DUI when they are not under the influence of anything (both of those are real btw).

But hey, let's not focus on that side of the coin because anything deemed legal that helps you catch "bad guys" can't be bad, can it?  

No, I don't mean a $20 seat belt ticket or warning.

I mean spending several months in jail having been arrested for possessing contraband found in a search that began with a traffic stop that turned out to be candy.

Or one of more examples where a fishing expedition that started with some bullshit traffic infraction turned someone's life upside down.

I'm sure that woman was just a drama llama, right?  I mean seat belt laws save laws.   And local budgets.  

FALSE.

I was stopped due to a case of mistaken identity, because the officer involved could not tell the difference between two vehicle of a similar color.

I did not break the traffic law I was stopped for. It is impossible for me to have committed said infraction, as I had been parked alongside the road looking at a map, a full half-mile from where the infraction was said to have occured. I watched the police officer drive by me as I was parked, and at no point during that day had I driven on the stretch of road where the infraction was said to have occurred.

After asking why I had been stopped, I politely and respectfully explained to the officer that he was mistaken, and why.

For all those saying to "argue it in court", you are asking me to sign and accept a ticket for a traffic violation I did not commit, take a day from work to go to court, and then try to convince a judge that it was not me that the officer had seen committing the traffic violation.

How would I go about proving my innocence?

I would likely have had to subpoena the dash cam footage from the officer's vehicle, hoping that it would still be available for review, and that it would clearly show me parked alongside the road or show that I was driving a different vehicle than the one he had seen commit the traffic violation.

Meanwhile, the officer would likely testify that I was in fact the vehicle he stopped, as in his mind, I was.

Without the dash cam footage to exonerate me, it would essentially be my testimony vs the officer's. Additionally, at that time I would be trying to describe a situation that happened at least a month or two prior, depending on how soon the court date was. Meanwhile, the officer would be using a citation issed the day of the infraction as his evidence, as well as his testimony that he had personally witnessed me committed said infraction.

Anyone care to guess what my odds would be of convincing a judge that the officer had the wrong man?

In essence, unless I were able to secure the dash cam footage to support my innocence, to "argue it in court" runs a very significant risk of being found guilty of a traffic violation I did not commit.

The more comments I see in this thread from LEO, the more grateful I am that the officer I spoke with had the decency and courtesy to take the time to discuss the situation with me, rather than just say "Tell it to the judge."

It saddens me to think that his level of professionalism is the rare exception, not the norm.

I haven't had an interaction with one in awhile.  Kinda disappoints me.  They are so much fun.  I think a bunch of them in my area have wised up and FINALLY realized their shit doesn't work.  Sad that a bunch of retarded sovereign citizens figured it out quicker than some posters on this site.

Double tap

So you are saying you spoke to an officer?  Like actually talked to him?

Haven't you read the GD advise to never talk to the cops?

How come you didn't ask for your lawyer?

Do you have some point you are trying to make of do you like to just hear yourself talk?

How about making it in less than 50 words?