To Protect and to Serve...

[tim]

You're guilty of arguing too my friend

Ive refrained lately.

 

[Grand Vol]

Let me try again... if you did not say that a traffic stop is not slick way to find information on a citizen in hopes of possibly getting a hit, then what did you say? Clarify you position, don't just pout and act sanctimonious when we are only interpreting what you said.

Okay, I'll rephrase what I said...

And this goes to show your ignorance. Do you realize how many other violations, to include serious warrants, cops pick up on routine traffic stops?

Case in point, I pulled a guy over for doing eleven over and he had not only one, but two felony warrants for assault with a deadly weapon. I suppose I could have just let him slide since the traffic violation wasn't a big deal and all...

Routine traffic stops meaning "the officer observed a violation and pulled said driver over for said violation to cite or warn said driver for violation."

Other violations meaning "once the officer had made contact with said driver for the original traffic violation, they discovered through NCIC or the State equivalent said driver had warrants or summonses for additional, more nefarious crimes."

So, to sum up: Officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation. Officer runs license and/or plates through NCIC check per standard procedure. Officer finds additional outstanding charges upon running said license and/or plates. Officer takes said individual to jail. Public is happy officer got a criminal off the streets that was wanted for a more serious crime or crimes. Space is happy his taxes don't go up. LG is happy for some additional work. Summation ends.

Now if your and others cognitive ability isn't high enough to comprehend what I wrote there in plain English with no ambiguity I can't help you get more intelligent. Sorry to say, but you're likely stuck being stupid for the remainder of your life.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

At least my insults are funny.

From what I've gathered in his posts, Coast is a fan of:

-Not paying for the costs of others, necessary or no.
-Getting paid for the infractions of others.

Lol, what a piece of ****.

Awwwww I love you too.

 

[CNCVol88]

Okay, I'll rephrase what I said...



Routine traffic stops meaning "the officer observed a violation and pulled said driver over for said violation to cite or warn said driver for violation."

Other violations meaning "once the officer had made contact with said driver for the original traffic violation, they discovered through NCIC or the State equivalent said driver had warrants or summonses for additional, more nefarious crimes."

So, to sum up: Officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation. Officer runs license and/or plates through NCIC check per standard procedure. Officer finds additional outstanding charges upon running said license and/or plates. Officer takes said individual to jail. Public is happy officer got a criminal off the streets that was wanted for a more serious crime or crimes. Space is happy his taxes don't go up. LG is happy for some additional work. Summation ends.

Now if your and others cognitive ability isn't high enough to comprehend what I wrote there in plain English with no ambiguity I can't help you get more intelligent. Sorry to say, but you're likely stuck being stupid for the remainder of your life.

Don't forget I'm happy because my warrant was served and my employer will be receiving it's restitution.

 

[apevol]

Yeah, but me and dink end up stuck in jail

 

[Grand Vol]

Don't forget I'm happy because my warrant was served and my employer will be receiving it's restitution.

You hope.

 

[Grand Vol]

Yeah, but me and dink end up stuck in jail

Dink will call his lady-toy to bail him out.

 

[apevol]

Dink will call his lady-toy to bail him out.

Softy.. you ain't gettin my money, ill just rot

 

[CNCVol88]

You hope.

Fair enough.

 

[Grand Vol]

Softy.. you ain't gettin my money, ill just rot

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHjlM5A1jME[/youtube]

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Okay, I'll rephrase what I said...



Routine traffic stops meaning "the officer observed a violation and pulled said driver over for said violation to cite or warn said driver for violation."

Other violations meaning "once the officer had made contact with said driver for the original traffic violation, they discovered through NCIC or the State equivalent said driver had warrants or summonses for additional, more nefarious crimes."

So, to sum up: Officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation. Officer runs license and/or plates through NCIC check per standard procedure. Officer finds additional outstanding charges upon running said license and/or plates. Officer takes said individual to jail. Public is happy officer got a criminal off the streets that was wanted for a more serious crime or crimes. Space is happy his taxes don't go up. LG is happy for some additional work. Summation ends.

Now if your and others cognitive ability isn't high enough to comprehend what I wrote there in plain English with no ambiguity I can't help you get more intelligent. Sorry to say, but you're likely stuck being stupid for the remainder of your life.

For every routine traffic stop that ends the way you described, how many more end with the license and plates coming back clean, yet the officer feels the need to press on (where are you going/do you mind if I check your car/can I get your passenger's ID, etc) and turns into a fishing expedition where they get nitpicky simple possessions of drugs or firearms? (Yes I said nitpicky firearms possessions)

Cops put themselves and the public in more danger with these nitpicky violations than anything else because you create an environment where people think you are just ******* with them until you get a bite.

 

[Grand Vol]

For every routine traffic stop that ends the way you described, how many more end with the license and plates coming back clean, yet the officer feels the need to press on (where are you going/do you mind if I check your car/can I get your passenger's ID, etc) and turns into a fishing expedition where they get nitpicky simple possessions of drugs or firearms? (Yes I said nitpicky firearms possessions)

Cops put themselves and the public in more danger with these nitpicky violations than anything else because you create an environment where people think you are just ******* with them until you get a bite.

"No sir, I do not give you consent to search my vehicle without probable cause."

As for the passengers identifying themselves, that's a local or State based law. Need to dial up your local representatives about that one.

 

[therealUT]

For every routine traffic stop that ends the way you described, how many more end with the license and plates coming back clean, yet the officer feels the need to press on (where are you going/do you mind if I check your car/can I get your passenger's ID, etc) and turns into a fishing expedition where they get nitpicky simple possessions of drugs or firearms? (Yes I said nitpicky firearms possessions)

Cops put themselves and the public in more danger with these nitpicky violations than anything else because you create an environment where people think you are just ******* with them until you get a bite.

The better question is how many of the checks that come back positive are for actual crimes to persons and property and how many come back for bs narcotics violations.

Cops, and cop apologists, will often cite the fact that one who is a user or one who drinks and drives is more likely to harm other persons and property. While this is backed by statistics, the very same statistics demonstrate that, non-comparatively, such individuals are still unlikely, all things considered, to do harm to other persons and property.

Yet, in the interest of "society",LE continues to take money out of the pockets of individuals, take them away from their families, and take their freedom. Arguably, LE has never protected and served the citizens, the persons, the individuals; instead, what LE protects and serves is the legitimacy of the state. Ironically, in doing so with such enthusiasm and vigilance, LE often undermines that very legitimacy in the eyes of a scrupulous, and fed up, public.

 

[Grand Vol]

The better question is how many of the checks that come back positive are for actual crimes to persons and property and how many come back for bs narcotics violations.

Cops, and cop apologists, will often cite the fact that one who is a user or one who drinks and drives is more likely to harm other persons and property. While this is backed by statistics, the very same statistics demonstrate that, non-comparatively, such individuals are still unlikely, all things considered, to do harm to other persons and property.

Yet, in the interest of "society",LE continues to take money out of the pockets of individuals, take them away from their families, and take their freedom. Arguably, LE has never protected and served the citizens, the persons, the individuals; instead, what LE protects and serves is the legitimacy of the state. Ironically, in doing so with such enthusiasm and vigilance, LE often undermines that very legitimacy in the eyes of a scrupulous, and fed up, public.

What you call BS is still against the drug laws currently. And whether or not you agree, it's still the law.

And what always makes me chuckle are people ignoring the overwhelming evidence that LE is not solely responsible for all of this. You speak of LE being the enforcement too of the legitimacy of the State. I won't disagree and yet people either ignore the fact LE gathers their powers from elected officials and courts. This not so minor point is always overlooked in the eyes of so many. Instead of going to the root source, the politicians and elected officials, people will blame the law enforcement instead. And turn their hatred onto them instead of the place it very well could be most effective.

You can still complain about the drug laws and how absurd they are all you want, but it doesn't change the fact the politicians are the ones that will have to make those laws change. And until said time, LE will continue to enforce the law as it stands. And in turn earn the disdain of the public for enforcing said laws. Now I agree with many on here that sometimes LE goes way overboard on enforcing the law and I do think it should be dialed back. But until the focus of the people is on the root problem, the politicians, there is nothing that will change.

 

[therealUT]

What you call BS is still against the drug laws currently. And whether or not you agree, it's still the law.

I realize that. So what?

And what always makes me chuckle are people ignoring the overwhelming evidence that LE is not solely responsible for all of this. You speak of LE being the enforcement too of the legitimacy of the State. I won't disagree and yet people either ignore the fact LE gathers their powers from elected officials and courts. This not so minor point is always overlooked in the eyes of so many. Instead of going to the root source, the politicians and elected officials, people will blame the law enforcement instead. And turn their hatred onto them instead of the place it very well could be most effective.

I also realize that the entirety of the problem does not rest with LE, however, LE do willingly enforce these laws, and these laws, if they were not enforced, would not be a problem (as, several laws that are on the books, and have been on the books for centuries, are, in point of fact, disregarded by LE as irrelevant, so LE does have control over which laws they decide to enforce).

You can still complain about the drug laws and how absurd they are all you want, but it doesn't change the fact the politicians are the ones that will have to make those laws change. And until said time, LE will continue to enforce the law as it stands. And in turn earn the disdain of the public for enforcing said laws. Now I agree with many on here that sometimes LE goes way overboard on enforcing the law and I do think it should be dialed back. But until the focus of the people is on the root problem, the politicians, there is nothing that will change.

LE does not enforce the law as it stands, though. There are plenty of laws they do not enforce. Further, this response reduces to, "Hey, they are just obeying orders", and, as such, does not do anything to merit my respect of such individuals and organizations.

 

[Grand Vol]

Further, this response reduces to, "Hey, they are just obeying orders", and, as such, does not do anything to merit my respect of such individuals and organizations.

Nice try at interpreting what I said. I thought you were smarter than that.

I'll address the remainder later.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The NYPD has already established the precedent that they do not have to enforce ALL of the laws that are on the books... and a big city like New York didn't see an uptick in violent crime or chaos.

If anything, the police could serve a noble service and be like a check/balance for an overzealous legislature or city lawmakers by NOT enforcing all of the trivial or more ridiculous laws.

 

[therealUT]

Nice try at interpreting what I said. I thought you were smarter than that.

I'll address the remainder later.

How does this not address what you said? You are merely trying to pass the buck to the politicians, but the politicians do not enforce the absurd laws, the police do, and they either do because they want to, in which part they are no better than the politicians, or they do so merely because they are told to, in which part they are no better than children.

 

[therealUT]

You are making TRUT look good now. What a moron. Yeah, let's wait until a kid gets run over in neighborhood until we charge someone with a crime.

Can't we say, with this line of thought, that since it is possible that anyone, even those individuals of whom, from all previous interaction and experience, we would never suspect of harming others can, much to our surprise, not only harm others but deliberately harm others, we ought to just lock everyone up in individual cells so that we keep others from being physically harmed/killed?

On what principle ought we avoid instituting a totalitarian society in which all members of society are separated from others, except when the production and procurement of basic goods is absolutely necessary? On what principle ought we avoid instituting a society in which, when individuals must work, they do so as a part of some sort of strictly monitored chain-gang?

If that principle is that we value freedom, liberty, autonomy, personal opportunity and choice, then we value it over absolute security, as the alternative most closely approximates to absolute security. Yet, if we value those things above absolute security, then we must risk situations in which a child is killed by a driver, whether drunk or sober. We must risk the situation in which one uses their individual liberty to deliberately injure and kill others. We can always punish post facto, but punishing individuals merely because, while they have not yet harmed others, statistical analysis suggests they are more likely to harm others is, until they have actually injured another, promoting security above autonomy and liberty.

There is nothing inherently contradictory about valuing security over liberty, but there is something paradoxical in valuing security over liberty yet not supporting totalitarian government and society.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Really, is that what you got from this? "All that" stemmed from the fact that she refused to show a license, registration and proof of insurance. The only reason not to in this instance was because she didn't have a license, registration, or proof of insurance.

SMDH at you and the two that liked your post.

Once again, cop should have popped her with a taser when she refused to leave the car. She could have grabbed him while taking off and put him under the rear wheel. The cop was a dumbass for approaching a car still running.

Yes, all that for doing 39 in a 25 zone. All the while hurting no one, and minding her own business. This whole thing could've been avoided if the copper had been out finding real criminals who are harming persons or property. Instead, he was out collecting revenue for his master the state.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Whatever revenue the city/county would have gained is now wasted because you have one more person in the court system and the prison system.

In the grander scheme of things, writing that ticket probably cost Charleston $1 million dollars after all is said and done.

Quite possibly, should have tazed her.

 

[82_VOL_83]

You heard me... if you are gonna use the excuse that traffic stops help to find people with warrants or help to find other violations, then why not go the next step and really get a bumper crop of people off the streets?

I was hoping you were sarcastic, maybe you are just a little addled?

 

[82_VOL_83]

You heard me... if you are gonna use the excuse that traffic stops help to find people with warrants or help to find other violations, then why not go the next step and really get a bumper crop of people off the streets?

So a fishing expedition is basically what a traffic stop is... thanks.

No, a traffic stop is a traffic stop. If you happen to have a couple of felony warrants hanging around, you are screwed. Don't f up behind the wheel and you can carry all the warrants you want on your record. You won't be caught for a traffic violation.

Ras, did a big ole good lookin black chick stop you and give you the once over? Is that your problem? You should carry a tube of KY with you for the instances when there just isn't time for proper preparation.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Are you ****ing serious? Please don't tell me your comprehension levels are that ****ing low.

Is everyone turning into 8188?

Here is the MO and see if it isn't followed by some to a Tee:

1) feign ignorance
2) insist that you draw them a picture (i.e. do their homework for them) and continue to feign ignorance.
3) take the post out of context or change the topic just enough that what is answered is incomprehensible, ask to have yet another picture drawn, and continue to feign ignorance.

 

[82_VOL_83]

For every routine traffic stop that ends the way you described, how many more end with the license and plates coming back clean, yet the officer feels the need to press on (where are you going/do you mind if I check your car/can I get your passenger's ID, etc) and turns into a fishing expedition where they get nitpicky simple possessions of drugs or firearms? (Yes I said nitpicky firearms possessions)

Cops put themselves and the public in more danger with these nitpicky violations than anything else because you create an environment where people think you are just ******* with them until you get a bite.

In my 39 years behind the wheel I have been pulled over probably 25 times. Mostly in my youth, twice in the last year, and probably a half dozen times in the last 12 or so years. I HAVE NEVER and I repeat because you are having issues NEVER been searched, asked where I was going that I thought was unreasonable, asked to have passenger ID's presented or had a fishing expedition run on me. I have always answered honestly and been polite. I can honestly say, the only pricks that I have run into in my adult/young adult life worked for the KPD and UTPD. Those two departments go out of their way to be jerks.