No sir, you can't pull ANYONE over at any time and ask for ID. I've had cops tell me this personally, that they cannot pull people over without probable cause, unless it's a designated checkpoint area. The only time a cop can randomly pull ANYONE over, is at the checkpoints you admire.Pug wrote:
It is legal to pull someone over at a checkpoint.
It is also legal to pull ANYONE over at any time and ask for ID.
It is not legal to search without cause.
Don't show your ID = probable cause.
Last edited by Pug (2006-11-23 18:34:07)
#1. There is a difference between a checkpoint, and pulling someone over. That's why checkpoints exist. If they were the same thing, there'd be no reason for a regulated, approved area for checkpoints.Pug wrote:
Ok, this will help:
"If the officer can't form a convincing explanation for why you were pulled over, the seizure becomes illegal, and any evidence found during the traffic stop can't be used in court." However, this doesn't mean they CAN'T pull you over...it means they can if they feel like it. And if they can't tell you why they detained you...well you walk. However, in every case you must produce an ID.
http://www.flexyourrights.org/pretext_traffic_stops
These people were all pulled over and given tickets. Illegal?
http://www.wftv.com/automotive/7847681/detail.html
Washington State Troopers - what to do when you are pulled over. Not followed in the video.
http://www.wsp.wa.gov/about/pullover.htm
Here's a good one where lawyers are debating. The point I'm trying to make follows the link. It's interesting as well, because it says charges won't hold up unless the reason why they pulled the guy over is the same as what they found...well, then no charges...
http://www.daviswiki.org/Police_Misconduct_Stories
Based on what cops tell me you don't have the right to refuse a police order. You basically do what the police officer tells you to do even if it is evasive. That said, it is most probable that the crime you may or may not have committed would be thrown out, the officer would be disciplined for his or her actions, and you would be free to sue a whole lot of people. I would cite Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada to back the comments I have had received from police officers. I wouldn't recommend refusing to give your name to the police in order to take a tour through the legal system. Steven Ostrowski
?Dec45 wrote:
#1. There is a difference between a checkpoint, and pulling someone over. That's why checkpoints exist. If they were the same thing, there'd be no reason for a regulated, approved area for checkpoints.Pug wrote:
Ok, this will help:
"If the officer can't form a convincing explanation for why you were pulled over, the seizure becomes illegal, and any evidence found during the traffic stop can't be used in court." However, this doesn't mean they CAN'T pull you over...it means they can if they feel like it. And if they can't tell you why they detained you...well you walk. However, in every case you must produce an ID.
http://www.flexyourrights.org/pretext_traffic_stops
These people were all pulled over and given tickets. Illegal?
http://www.wftv.com/automotive/7847681/detail.html
Washington State Troopers - what to do when you are pulled over. Not followed in the video.
http://www.wsp.wa.gov/about/pullover.htm
Here's a good one where lawyers are debating. The point I'm trying to make follows the link. It's interesting as well, because it says charges won't hold up unless the reason why they pulled the guy over is the same as what they found...well, then no charges...
http://www.daviswiki.org/Police_Misconduct_Stories
Based on what cops tell me you don't have the right to refuse a police order. You basically do what the police officer tells you to do even if it is evasive. That said, it is most probable that the crime you may or may not have committed would be thrown out, the officer would be disciplined for his or her actions, and you would be free to sue a whole lot of people. I would cite Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada to back the comments I have had received from police officers. I wouldn't recommend refusing to give your name to the police in order to take a tour through the legal system. Steven Ostrowski
A) The legality of pulling people over is a legal matter, and while it may be unnecessary, it's not actually the cops who pass the laws which allow it.Dec45 wrote:
#2. Cops are not going to get any discipline for anything they do. Funny you mention Rodney King... How much time did those cops do? Oh, that's right...
Your logic seems to be suggesting that you're okay with cops pulling people over, because you're confident and at ease with the notion that if you haven't done anything wrong, the cops will let you walk. That's totally beside the point. You're excusing a cop harassing someone for no reason, just because you know that person won't get in trouble if they haven't done anything wrong. No shit! The point is not that the person will get in trouble, the point is people like you are fine with cops having the ability to arbitrarily pull anyone over, at anytime, without probable cause or reason. That's not American, in my book.
My only regret is that, Rodney King, actually got up again.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
?Dec45 wrote:
#1. There is a difference between a checkpoint, and pulling someone over. That's why checkpoints exist. If they were the same thing, there'd be no reason for a regulated, approved area for checkpoints.Pug wrote:
Ok, this will help:
"If the officer can't form a convincing explanation for why you were pulled over, the seizure becomes illegal, and any evidence found during the traffic stop can't be used in court." However, this doesn't mean they CAN'T pull you over...it means they can if they feel like it. And if they can't tell you why they detained you...well you walk. However, in every case you must produce an ID.
http://www.flexyourrights.org/pretext_traffic_stops
These people were all pulled over and given tickets. Illegal?
http://www.wftv.com/automotive/7847681/detail.html
Washington State Troopers - what to do when you are pulled over. Not followed in the video.
http://www.wsp.wa.gov/about/pullover.htm
Here's a good one where lawyers are debating. The point I'm trying to make follows the link. It's interesting as well, because it says charges won't hold up unless the reason why they pulled the guy over is the same as what they found...well, then no charges...
http://www.daviswiki.org/Police_Misconduct_Stories
Based on what cops tell me you don't have the right to refuse a police order. You basically do what the police officer tells you to do even if it is evasive. That said, it is most probable that the crime you may or may not have committed would be thrown out, the officer would be disciplined for his or her actions, and you would be free to sue a whole lot of people. I would cite Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada to back the comments I have had received from police officers. I wouldn't recommend refusing to give your name to the police in order to take a tour through the legal system. Steven Ostrowski
I suppose you might be trying to say that a checkpoint where cars are slowed down and most or all are asked for their driving licence would be the same thing as sending some kind of huge army of police cars to pull each person who passes along a stretch of road individually... checkpoints are simply a matter of practicality allowed by the same law as pulling someone over to ask for the driving licence.A) The legality of pulling people over is a legal matter, and while it may be unnecessary, it's not actually the cops who pass the laws which allow it.Dec45 wrote:
#2. Cops are not going to get any discipline for anything they do. Funny you mention Rodney King... How much time did those cops do? Oh, that's right...
Your logic seems to be suggesting that you're okay with cops pulling people over, because you're confident and at ease with the notion that if you haven't done anything wrong, the cops will let you walk. That's totally beside the point. You're excusing a cop harassing someone for no reason, just because you know that person won't get in trouble if they haven't done anything wrong. No shit! The point is not that the person will get in trouble, the point is people like you are fine with cops having the ability to arbitrarily pull anyone over, at anytime, without probable cause or reason. That's not American, in my book.
B) The Rodney King officers got off the same way that the woman in the OP did... sympathy of their peers. A different jury would have almost certainly come to a different, just verdict. The jury decided that they didn't commit a crime, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary. Jurys are unreliable and stupid. But you can't have it both ways, either everyone gets a jury trial for serious crimes, or no-one does. This woman in the OP would not have got off the extra charges if it hadn't been a jury trial. It goes to show that if people have the support of their communities in their actions, then they can get away with nearly anything, despite what the law says. It's this fact which let's the cops do what they want in certain areas, as they know that even if it somehow got to trial, a jury wouldn't let it stick. Hence the problem isn't the cops, isn't the laws, isn't the legal system, it's the attitudes of people in these areas in America.
...and there, summed up in 2 short lines, is the exact attitude that lets the cops get away with racist beatings, and a great punctuation of my closing remark.lowing wrote:
My only regret is that, Rodney King, actually got up again.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
It's this fact which let's the cops do what they want in certain areas, as they know that even if it somehow got to trial, a jury wouldn't let it stick. Hence the problem isn't the cops, isn't the laws, isn't the legal system, it's the attitudes of people in these areas in America.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project … rests.html
sorry, I will not let you place the race card over this, RK would have had his ass whipped regardless of his skin color. People like you like to dress it up as racial for dramatics. He was high as a kite. And if you read the link you would also know he probably wasn't on his way to Grandma's house for cookies and milk.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
...and there, summed up in 2 short lines, is the exact attitude that lets the cops get away with racist beatings, and a great punctuation of my closing remark.lowing wrote:
My only regret is that, Rodney King, actually got up again.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
It's this fact which let's the cops do what they want in certain areas, as they know that even if it somehow got to trial, a jury wouldn't let it stick. Hence the problem isn't the cops, isn't the laws, isn't the legal system, it's the attitudes of people in these areas in America.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project … rests.html
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-26 21:56:36)
I agree, as long as they just beat and shoot drunks and druggies it's fine. And if they make a mistake and shoot the wrong guy, they can just plant some drugs on their victim and they'd have done a service to the community.lowing wrote:
bottom line
If you will not govern yourself....EXPECT to be governed by someone else. I know, I know, your doctrine forbids personal responsibility. So much easier to play the race card.
It more than figures that you would defend that worthless P.O.S.
Yeah, I love that, LA "RACE" RIOT..........To protest my oppression by white America, I shall steal this 47 inch color TV, this new stereo system, these new basketball shoes, this new starter jacket, and all of this fine jewelry from this department store. THAT should teach them a lesson. As if anyone involved gave 2 fucks about RK. Sure sounds like you are playing the joker after all.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
I agree, as long as they just beat and shoot drunks and druggies it's fine. And if they make a mistake and shoot the wrong guy, they can just plant some drugs on their victim and they'd have done a service to the community.lowing wrote:
bottom line
If you will not govern yourself....EXPECT to be governed by someone else. I know, I know, your doctrine forbids personal responsibility. So much easier to play the race card.
It more than figures that you would defend that worthless P.O.S.
Funny how you accuse me of "playing the race card" over the incident which sparked the LA race riots... at least I'm not playing the joker...
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-27 04:01:07)
Actually, the point about a checkpoint and pulling someone over is an example - a comparison of pulling someone over for no reason. Essentially there's no difference in legality. The cops have no reason to pull you over, so what's the difference if you do it at a checkpoint? My point is that you believe that it is legal to stop someone at a checkpoint...it's the same if they pull you over!Dec45 wrote:
#1. There is a difference between a checkpoint, and pulling someone over. That's why checkpoints exist. If they were the same thing, there'd be no reason for a regulated, approved area for checkpoints.
#2. Cops are not going to get any discipline for anything they do. Funny you mention Rodney King... How much time did those cops do? Oh, that's right...
Your logic seems to be suggesting that you're okay with cops pulling people over, because you're confident and at ease with the notion that if you haven't done anything wrong, the cops will let you walk. That's totally beside the point. You're excusing a cop harassing someone for no reason, just because you know that person won't get in trouble if they haven't done anything wrong. No shit! The point is not that the person will get in trouble, the point is people like you are fine with cops having the ability to arbitrarily pull anyone over, at anytime, without probable cause or reason. That's not American, in my book.
Thats how it is here in OZ, b4 this post i was a bit lost....B.Schuss wrote:
in germany, cops do not need to have a specific reason to pull you over. At night, and especially on the weekends, they'll drive routine patrols and pull over cars to check on correct driver's license, proper insurance, and - most importantly - DUI violations.
It's called "General Traffic Control" ( Allgemeine Verkehrskontrolle in german ) and it's no biggie. I have had my Driver's License since 1994 now, and I have only been stopped 3 times, I believe. Not much, wouldn't you agree ?
But if it contributes to my safety on the road, I'll gladly sacrifice those 2 minutes and show ID. What's so difficult about that ?
Well, go and edit the wikipedia if you've got the balls, because there is, right on the race riots page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_riot#Modernlowing wrote:
Yeah, I love that, LA "RACE" RIOT..........To protest my oppression by white America, I shall steal this 47 inch color TV, this new stereo system, these new basketball shoes, this new starter jacket, and all of this fine jewelry from this department store. THAT should teach them a lesson. As if anyone involved gave 2 fucks about RK. Sure sounds like you are playing the joker after all.
You can call it whatever the hell you want. If you think those idiots gave 2 shits about RK as a victim, over that brand new big screen they have their eyes on, you are naive, to say the least. To those people rioting and looting it was like Christmas for them, or did you miss the video of the truck driver getting his head bashed in by a brick, while everyone laughed? Gee, I don't remember his name, do you, (without the google). Also, I guess THAT wasn't race related since it was never presented as such.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Well, go and edit the wikipedia if you've got the balls, because there is, right on the race riots page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_riot#Modernlowing wrote:
Yeah, I love that, LA "RACE" RIOT..........To protest my oppression by white America, I shall steal this 47 inch color TV, this new stereo system, these new basketball shoes, this new starter jacket, and all of this fine jewelry from this department store. THAT should teach them a lesson. As if anyone involved gave 2 fucks about RK. Sure sounds like you are playing the joker after all.
I think I see what happened though... you think "riot" means looting, when in fact the looting is a side-effect of the riot.
Looting is a consequence of the riot. A riot is when things get out of control, in this example because of the racist actions that ocurred against RK. Of course the looters didn't give a crap about RK, still the cause of the riot was about him.lowing wrote:
You can call it whatever the hell you want. If you think those idiots gave 2 shits about RK as a victim, over that brand new big screen they have their eyes on, you are naive, to say the least. To those people rioting and looting it was like Christmas for them, or did you miss the video of the truck driver getting his head bashed in by a brick, while everyone laughed? Gee, I don't remember his name, do you, (without the google). Also, I guess THAT wasn't race related since it was never presented as such.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Well, go and edit the wikipedia if you've got the balls, because there is, right on the race riots page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_riot#Modernlowing wrote:
Yeah, I love that, LA "RACE" RIOT..........To protest my oppression by white America, I shall steal this 47 inch color TV, this new stereo system, these new basketball shoes, this new starter jacket, and all of this fine jewelry from this department store. THAT should teach them a lesson. As if anyone involved gave 2 fucks about RK. Sure sounds like you are playing the joker after all.
I think I see what happened though... you think "riot" means looting, when in fact the looting is a side-effect of the riot.
and I guess rain is a consequence of a thunderstorm, it isn't part of one.EVieira wrote:
Looting is a consequence of the riot. A riot is when things get out of control, in this example because of the racist actions that ocurred against RK. Of course the looters didn't give a crap about RK, still the cause of the riot was about him.lowing wrote:
You can call it whatever the hell you want. If you think those idiots gave 2 shits about RK as a victim, over that brand new big screen they have their eyes on, you are naive, to say the least. To those people rioting and looting it was like Christmas for them, or did you miss the video of the truck driver getting his head bashed in by a brick, while everyone laughed? Gee, I don't remember his name, do you, (without the google). Also, I guess THAT wasn't race related since it was never presented as such.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Well, go and edit the wikipedia if you've got the balls, because there is, right on the race riots page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_riot#Modern
I think I see what happened though... you think "riot" means looting, when in fact the looting is a side-effect of the riot.