PDA

View Full Version : Got Pulled Over Today



chickenstomp
01-17-2011, 06:15 PM
On my way to work, doing the speed limit. A cop drives past me in the opposite direction. He goes about a quarter mile before flipping around and turning his lights on.

I pull over, he asks for registration/insurance and all that. He tells me my exhaust is WAY too loud. (It's not even that loud) It's actually quieter than my last car. I just got a warning, but it's pretty annoying that I never see Harleys and those trucks with glass packs ever getting pulled over.

Just the young guys driving imports and the like:thumbsdown:

ChrisD
01-17-2011, 06:21 PM
Is there a law in Idaho on exhaust noise? We don't have one here, but there is a law against "widening the muffler tip". It's a hokey law but lots of people get $180 tickets for aftermarket mufflers here.

chickenstomp
01-17-2011, 06:24 PM
I'm not sure, all I know is I've been pulled over like 10 times for exhaust and never got a ticket

Facime
01-17-2011, 07:01 PM
most states, if not more specific, now have at least a vague catch all law that says something to the effect that your exhaust cant be any louder than "necessary to perform its function".

I was pulled over for my exhaust as well. The officer said flat out that it was an excuse to pull me over and look for something more serious.

chickenstomp
01-17-2011, 07:34 PM
I hate cops

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-17-2011, 07:54 PM
I hate cops

Thats a great attitude take.

I've been pulled over for a variety of things. If I am not doing something wrong, I get to go. Most Cops I have dealt with are normal, hard working, decent people. Their job is hard at times and their attitudes change from the job. That being said, I have also watched an officer on steroids use excessive force on a disabled man, etc. We always hear stories and amplify the negative. The officer that pulled you over gave you a warning and you gave him the opportunity to educate him about the law. People make mistakes, but it is certainly no reason to go and hate cops.

Having lived in Cincinnati for 5 years, I watched an entire police force change from racist nigger killers, to friendly community foot patrollers. Wanna know how that happened? Department change at the top. Better leadership, brings a better force.

temperacerguy
01-17-2011, 08:01 PM
I was pulled over for my exhaust as well. The officer said flat out that it was an excuse to pull me over and look for something more serious.

Ding ding ding ding...

That's typically right. I was recently pulled over for "a modified exhaust" and ,my tint was too dark. I asked him to point out the laws while he was running my registration, I pulled up the statutes on my phone.

When he came back, I asked if he had a DB meter with him... he said "no, why?" I said "because the law states that the exhaust has to be above "x" Decibels", I also asked how he determined that my tint was not passing enough light without a light meter... He told me that a judge would just come out and listen to my exhaust, and look at my tint. I told him if he wants to fight this in court, that I would gladly fight this as he has not proven me guilty. He said that it wasn't worth his time, and let me go.

In FL, the law states specific DBs for the exhaust, but it's not as clear as California laws that state a certain DB at a certain distance, at a certain speed while measured 90 degrees to the outlet of the exhaust... Any exhaust ticket can be beat pretty easily, but the cops use it as Facime said... an excuse to pull you over to check you for drugs, warrants and so on...

I read alot of the police officer forums... and here's what one said about "loud exhaust" tickets:


I'll stop them if they excessively rev the motor at red lights just to let everyone know how cool they are. Other than that not really unless i just need PC to stop someone i want to check out.

Only cited for it once, Honda, sounded like a 130db weed whacker and the kid was an *****


BTW, the Idaho law is pretty outdated, and you're screwed if he wants to give you a ticket as your best bet is to go to court and plead no-contest, and let the judge reduce the fine/penalty. the law in Idaho states "...No person shall knowingly operate and no owner shall knowingly cause or permit to be operated any motor vehicle originally equipped or required by any law or regulation of the state or the federal government to be equipped with a noise suppressing system while any part of that system is disconnected or while that system or its operation is modified or altered in any manner, except to conform to the manufacturer’s specifications...."

"...(3) No person shall modify the exhaust system of a motor vehicle or a motorcycle in a manner which will amplify or increase the noise of the vehicle or motorcycle above that emitted by the muffler originally installed on the vehicle by the manufacturer...."

As I said, the laws are pretty excessive, and I am suprised SEMA hasn't fought this one yet. but if you got a ticket for this, you would have to prove that your exhaust is no louder than the factory installed exhaust.

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-17-2011, 08:08 PM
As I said, the laws are pretty excessive, and I am suprised SEMA hasn't fought this one yet. but if you got a ticket for this, you would have to prove that your exhaust is no louder than the factory installed exhaust.

SEMA has had their hands full with all the "greening" of laws. Because of laws regulating the sale of parts to maintain "outdated" vehicles that don't meet newer EPA guidelines, the state of Ohio Legislature last year was trying to break up businesses that support aftermarket. There were a number of new laws up for vote that would have banned things like uncertified mechanical work. Basically, you install anything outside of "basic maintenance" and you get fined and the car gets impounded.

This is why cars traded in under "Cash for Clunkers" HAVE to be destroyed. They are full of parts that keep your older ride going longer. By making the parts market smaller, you'll be more likely inclined to get a newer, greener car. That is what SEMA has been pouring a lot of time and resources into. Thank God there are many junkyards tagging stripped cars as the "Cash for Clunker" trade-in and then taking and parting out the complete cars to us.

Terracar
01-17-2011, 08:16 PM
While I agree with CBB, everyone has the right to choose who they hate.

I personally will gladly pay higher taxes for police/fire/med - they save my ass when I need it.

I do believe that police profile - this is based on my experiences - don't agree? I don't care. If a cop pulls me over for speeding or breaking a law that is clearly in place for public safety - so be it, I was wrong I accept the consequences. I do not agree with being pulled over for my louder than stock exhaust (it was a pacesetter - that chit isn't loud) or my side marker lights that are DOT approved and have amber bulbs, but the lens is clear so you want to tell me they are illegal even after I explain they have amber bulbs.

In my youth I funded my local law enforcement, the judges new me by name and I was on probation for my driving. I worked grave yard and for as many tickets as I received I was let off easily 3x as many times usually because they were BS reasons. On an average week I was followed at least a distance of 3 by my local law enforcement either on the way to work, or on the way home. I can't call this profiling though, since most of them knew my car and me by name. I can't blame them for that, I was a danger to the general populous on the road.

My contradiction to the above is when my friend and I were driving to his house. We were both exceeding the speedlimit, I was in a '94 Grand Am and my friend in a '93 riced Civic. I was behind my friend and he was still pulled over. The officer flipped on his lights behind me, allowed me over so he could pursue my friend. Funny enough, my friend has a clean record (complete opposite of mine) and he had the book thrown at him. He got a reckless driving and the harshest of the punishments for it.

Cops are not all bad, most are as CBB said, hard working idividuals. For them I salute and thank them for their continued efforts and placing themselves on the line. As in life there are always a bad egg in the batch.

-Terracar

chickenstomp
01-17-2011, 08:43 PM
Cops are a necessary evil I would say, and my reason for "hating cops" is based solely on my experiences with them. Ive only been stopped legitimately 2 or 3 times out of like 20 just because of profiling.

Bunch of kids in a Jeep Wrangler with the top down listening to music. Bicycle cops about 50 yards away chase after us and pull us over because they "smelled marijuana". They were ***holes about it too

Countless times pulled over for exhaust.

Pulled over for person in back of Jeep with no seatbelt. (Idaho law says that is ok as long as all available seatbelts are already being used.) I was willing to show him the Idaho State Law I had printed out, but he didn't want to see it. He just wrote me a ticket and left.

Again, a bunch of kids in a jeep get called in for drunk driving. (Some old people called us in) We were not drunk and not even driving unsafely. Cop follows us to Walmart and says that eevrybody has to call their parents and get a ride home. I was 18 at the time and the other kids were 16-17. It wasn't even past state curfew.

And a couple other minor things, but that is why I do not like cops, because they profile you and treat you like garbage because they are all on a power-trip. (From my experiences) It's probably cause all the cops in north idaho are bored and have nothing better to do

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-17-2011, 09:03 PM
I had an incident when I was young, that I was lucky enough to get guidance on at the time.

I was leaving work at 2am in Cleveland. I worked security at the Nautica Pavilion in the Flats. Anyone having lived in Cleveland knows that the Flats are a pretty seedy area that has been through a lot of ups and downs. I was driving my parents 97' Honda Civic at the time. On a green arrow, I made a left out of the Flats onto West Superior to travel over the bridge and toward I-77 south. Halfway across the bridge, I see lights coming up in my rear over the apex of the bridge. I get over to let the patrol car pass and they slow down behind me until I stop. This is not how any 18 year old, having just worked 8 hours, wants to start their 40 min commute home at 2am.

As the son of an Army Officer, I was told at a young age to always be respectful. To have my license and registration out the window in my left hand, to have my hazards on, and to have my car off, keys in my right hand on the dash. These guys have enough stress as it is. Both officers approach my car, with one on each side, one hand on their sidearm, one hand with a flashlight. The one officer asked me if I knew why I was being pulled over, and I answered honestly as to having no idea why. The other rapped on my passenger window wanting me to roll it down. I know this to be an interrogation tactic to make the driver nervous and have trouble keeping their lies straight.

I handed my information to the one, and went to turn on the ACC so I could roll the other window down. I was told to freeze and to not think about moving. Good cop, bad cop. Then I was informed that running red lights was dangerous. He then chuckled and said "You had no idea where we were sitting did you?" I know this to be an interrogation tactic to get a suspect to rethink their situation and to volunteer information about something illegal they may have involved in. I told him that I had not seen where they were sitting, but I had a green arrow and no violations had occurred.

That's when I was asked what was in my car. The cop reassured me that he would find what I had and that I should just tell him now so he could go easy on me. To that I responded, "sir, I have no idea what you are implying, but I assure you myself and this car are completely clean". The other officer responded, "I don't believe you, and we would like to search your car". Cops had to be careful, because there had been a number of cases in Cleveland where illegal searches on black drivers had been done, and they were required to either get you to imply or agree to a search if asked. I told them no, and that there was no reason to pull me over, and unless they could claim to have observed something, I wanted to speak to a supervisor.

Still trying to get me to confess, the first officer knelt down next to my window and looked at me in the eye. He said, "we all know what you kids do up here, and we know you scored something. So why don't you just tell us what you were doing, and we can resolve this." I asked if I could show the officer something, and he agreed. I showed him my work badge and told him that some of us work, and some of us just want to go home and sleep because he was right, it was 2am and I needed to get home.

They both clicked off their flashlights and went back to the patrol car. I sat there for about 10 minutes, before the first officer came back. He asked me "where did you steal the license plate from?" I said, "excuse me" and he asked who gave me the license plate for a 1999 Navy Blue Crown Victoria. I said, "you mean my dad's car?" He then asked why I had his plate instead of mine. We got into a drawn out series of stupid questions just so I could tell him my dad owned both vehicles and both plates. I even called him so the officer could hear it from him. He wrote me a ticket for wrong license plates and running a red light and let me go. I especially enjoyed watching him peel out on the bridge and make a U-turn. Guess I was a waste of time.

In court, I had to pay the red light violation. I had a judge explain to me that I was lucky that nothing else was brought against me given the time, location and my age. The plate charge was dropped because the handicapped plates my dad uses were issued by the state so similar, that the only numbers different between the two were a 7 and a 9. Handicapped plates are written out by hand on paperwork as to what car gets which, and the mixup was the state's fault.

Profiling sucks ass, and I paid $180 so two police officers could check me for drugs or prostitution. Profiling also catches a lot of criminals. It's a catch 22 that is supposed to scare people out of being places they don't "belong". I don't know how you resolve such a problem as it is much bigger then a few asshat police clowns.

chickenstomp
01-17-2011, 09:30 PM
Same happened to me. My friend was driving 5mph over in a 25mph zone. ya we were going 30 :O. Anyways, they pull us over and ask to search the car. They pull me out as the passenger and frisk me and took my pocket knife off of my pocket clip with his own hands and made us sit on the front of the cop car while they rummaged through the back seat and had a dog crawling all over it, scratching everything up. They found some aspirin in the back seat in a prescription bottle, and since they didn't find anything else, thought they woud try to scare him with that, saying, "I could write you a ticket for this aspirin for like $150." right. After about 30 minutes, they finally let us go

The Captain
01-18-2011, 01:04 AM
Hookecho check in!

I've suffered equally. I got pulled over in Princess for my license plate cover. It was CLEAR. It's hassling. Plain and simple. I see a bazzilion cars in ATL with no working brake lights and they pull ME over. Who's more of a hazard on the road? It's because we drive rice cars and dumb people street race. I'm a 45 year old airline captain, homeowner and taxpayer but because I drive a souped up "fast and furious" car I'm obviously trouble.

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-18-2011, 01:21 AM
I'm obviously trouble.

So profiling works, because as long as I've known you, you are trouble...

Facime
01-18-2011, 01:45 AM
^LOL

Im in the same demographic, and had the same experience, at leaast until he got to the window.

187flatliner
01-18-2011, 03:29 AM
Hookecho check in!

I've suffered equally. I got pulled over in Princess for my license plate cover. It was CLEAR. It's hassling. Plain and simple. I see a bazzilion cars in ATL with no working brake lights and they pull ME over. Who's more of a hazard on the road? It's because we drive rice cars and dumb people street race. I'm a 45 year old airline captain, homeowner and taxpayer but because I drive a souped up "fast and furious" car I'm obviously trouble.


here in oregon even a clear plate cover is against the law....... but hers my twist, they only pull me over when the plate cover is in the back,,,,when its on the front which it has been for some time i get no trouble.....??? i even have limo tinted windows and when i pull up to a cop he trys soooo hard to see whos driving...its funny to see......but they never pull me over for just my tint?......i think its stupid for the plate cover law but i do understand why they have it, it was made into law due to them stupid plate covers that stated the photo radar cameras couldnt capture the plate number......

i wouldnt say i get profiled due to when they look up the plate number on my car...it comes up registered to a 55 yr old woman named my mom.....lol....im 26 and yes ive never registered it in my name...im not stupid per say but i have my reasoning for not registering iit in my name. and that is one of them.

187flatliner
01-18-2011, 03:31 AM
but ive always wanted to invest in a car video/audio system so i can record everything.


i would love to get a ticket dismissed due to i didnt do anything wrong and have that one douche bag officer get written up for falsify tickets and such, i would have a hayday

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-18-2011, 04:05 AM
but ive always wanted to invest in a car video/audio system so i can record everything.


i would love to get a ticket dismissed due to i didnt do anything wrong and have that one douche bag officer get written up for falsify tickets and such, i would have a hayday

I want this, not just for law enforcement, but for the idiots on the road. Who knows when it'll come in handy, like my drunk driving incident that totaled Christine.

Blackcloud
01-18-2011, 04:09 AM
Is there a law in Idaho on exhaust noise? We don't have one here, but there is a law against "widening the muffler tip". It's a hokey law but lots of people get $180 tickets for aftermarket mufflers here.


law reads any modification to the exhaust other then stock is illegal



I get pulled over for too loud of exhaust all the time.. never given a ticket.. the cops seem to loose focus when they find out about all the guns i have in the truck.. lol

Fox 21 Alpha
01-18-2011, 06:49 AM
Case Law. Google it if you don't know what it is. Just because its written one way doesn't mean that's how it will go down exactly at court. Disorderly conduct doesn't saying anything about being used for possession of a small amount but hey... Same with reducing charges to lesser degrees and such. The cop is just there to get it on paper on what they observed and charge what they believe is right. The court is there to decide whether to keep/dismiss it and/or change/add charges. So don't get wrapped up too much in the text gents

mtp_69_i
01-18-2011, 11:30 AM
law reads any modification to the exhaust other then stock is illegal



I get pulled over for too loud of exhaust all the time.. never given a ticket.. the cops seem to loose focus when they find out about all the guns i have in the truck.. lol

hahaha!

mtp_69_i
01-18-2011, 11:50 AM
I had a similar experience to CBB. Was working afternoon shift (3PM til 3AM) at a winery in the Barossa Valley (South Oz, great reds!). 12hr shifts in the tank farm washing out 660,000 litre tanks leaves you pretty knackered. Driving the 15km back home on pretty quiet country roads (100kph speed limit) out the back of the small towns that line the Valley. Pull up at an intersection and start messing with the tape player. Police car drives through the intersection heading up the hill while I'm sitting there (otherwise alone on the road). I turn right and start driving up the hill roughly 300 meters behind him. Over the rise he's pulled over and flags me down. Two cops get out and start going over the car. Dialogue goes something like "Why are you out so late? What have you been doing?" (as if the Orlandos Winery uniform wasn't information enough). "Just finished work, heading home." "Anything in the car?" "Like what?" "Drugs, stolen wine, anything they should know about?" (I laughed, bad idea) "No go ahead and look." One cop spends 5 minutes pulling my glove box, centre console, front and back seats and some of the carpet apart, the other gets me to open the boot and then when he sees it's essentially empty tells me "travel light dontcha." Duh. Finally let me go telling me next time not to linger too long at intersections cos they thought I was trying to avoid them.

Anyway, these guys were obviously bored as shit and needed something to do. I could have done without the hassle and they could have been cooler about the whole thing but thems the breaks. It's a tough job and I reckon after a while most cops probably get sick of dealing with dickheads and so everyone gets the same cool treatment. Bottom line, if you're not doing anything wrong, it'll come out in the wash and you have nothing to worry about. If your car an illegally modified or you've just ripped off the winery you work at, then yeah, the cops are gonna be on your ass about it and so they should be.

Notably, one of the things cops have to do in Australia is provide you with their full name and police number if they give you any kind of fine/infringement/or arrest you. (you usually have to ask them for it but they're legally obliged to provide it). That tactic alone is a good deterrent for cops that are just hassling and know their fine or whatever isn't going to hold up.

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-18-2011, 02:02 PM
Up till now this was my perception of cops in OZ:

http://www.eatsleepgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/new-mad-max-movie-game.jpg


I've learned being sarcastic gets you NOWHERE in interogations. 20+ years with my dad who retired as a Major from the same Army platoon that was in Apocolypse Now taught me that. Unless you're in the power position, they'll rip you apart. That's why I owe the city Los Angeles $1200; sarcasm + a douche bag cop.

187flatliner
01-18-2011, 04:39 PM
That's why I owe the city Los Angeles $1200; sarcasm + a douche bag cop.

your mouth is the reason.....lol believe me ive gotten a bad ticket due to saying this "wtf you mean my taillights not working" that alone spent 186 + fees. ive learned to just cuss them out when their back there checking my name and getting ready to search my vehicle.......i think they hear me every once in awhile. lol

alltracNyx
01-19-2011, 01:58 AM
Chris (bloodMoney) has had a bit of the profiling issue. The most recent event was driving to northern MI to go to a wedding on Mackinac Island. We were behind a long line of cars in the right lane, with the cruise control set on the speed limit. A cop in the median almost immediately throws his lights on as we pass and pulls us over.

He asked lots of questions, like where were we going (wedding on Mackinac Island, tuxedo and dress are laying across the back seat in plain view), how long are we staying, when we will be heading back, etc. When I provided Chris' license, registration and insurance (since he came to the passenger side window), he proceeded to question whose name was on the registration and insurance (both mine and Chris' are on both, so it shouldn't have mattered), so I handed him my license for proof. He then told us that our plates were expiring (pulled over on 7/9/10, expiring on 7/31/10). He also became forceful with his questioning when he noticed that the registration does not expire on either of our birthdays. I had to explain that in IL, the registration expires exactly one year from the date of purchase, or last renewal, not on your birthday. His response was, "oh really?!" He then took all of the paperwork back to his car and spent about 15 minutes running the plate, and probably trying to find some probable cause to search the car. When he came back and had found nothing, he handed back the paperwork, and asked if we knew why we were pulled over. The obvious answer by this point was "no." It turns out that we were pulled over for the small Japanese flag that Chris has hanging behind the rearview mirror (no more than 3" x 2") because it was an obstruction. Explain to me how the cop even saw the flag in the window with us driving past at 70 mph with the windows open (so the flag was flapping and not just hanging down in plain sight)?

His skin color was probably a little more obvious than the flag, and it's not the first time it's happened. No attitude or sarcasm equaled no ticket. I won't say that I hate all cops, but definitely haven't had much positive reinforcement to be in favor either. Just my two cents.

The Captain
01-19-2011, 06:37 PM
This may help you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

Eric Barrera
01-19-2011, 06:49 PM
This may help you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

He got weed, he got weed.. hahahaha

187flatliner
01-19-2011, 07:01 PM
so win

BlueDragon
01-19-2011, 07:36 PM
Well what you really need to do is some law research and figure out how to sue for them harassing you when you are traveling and not "driving" which is being paid or being under orders of a superior whom employs you. Like say military people or someone hauling cargo or passengers for payment like a taxi driver. What they are doing amounts to violating your rights to liberty (includes freedom of travel, whether the vehicle is motorized or not). This is why the first thing any officer asks is for you to present a Drivers License which is you telling him you are driving and not traveling. The failure to make a distinction between the two is gross negligence which is equal to fraud under Common Law. You have the right to refuse service and any contract, when the officer asks you for your DL you need to refuse service or his jurisdiction over you is tacitly agreed to by you, and the "ticket" or "summons" which equals an invitation to contract being signed by you means you agree to the contract even if you were not previously under his jurisdiction by presenting him proof of your license contract. Always sign under duress and or protest to show the contract is void because the man (yes that is all an officer of the law is, just another man like you and me) that is "asking" you to contract has a gun and will kidnap or kill you if you do not agree.

Black's Law Dictionary defines the fallowing...

Driver. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car.

now this seems obvious that we all drive, but you must remember you are now learning a new language that appears to be english but is in reality legalese with different definitions then you and I use. now lets see what being employed means...

Employed. This signifies both the act of doing a thing and being under contract or orders to do it.

If you are not being paid by your guests you are not driving. If you are traveling for pleasure you are not driving. That is a private matter and is none of the officers concern. You are only obliged to present ID or DL if you consent and agree you are driving, this is where the police obtain all of their authority.
The maxim ( a rule in law that is always true) concerning the use of public roads is they are and were created and maintained for private use and any use for commercial purposes is extraordinary and therefore the government should be able to impose controls on it. The poor officers are put in a very actionable position by being taught to apply the "color of law" against peoples will in order to produce more profit, and impose a police state mentality where you do not ever question the authority of the Government to do something. Ignoring another maxim of law, that the Government is only to protect rights of people not to try and usurp the Sovereign Authority of We the People, whom through the constitution allowed the Government to exist, by consent allowing them power known as the "rule of law" which is only applicable upon consent tacit, unknowingly or otherwise through deception is also acceptable.
This is why your entire life you are always told with no proof you must get a license to travel around freely. The maxim that applies to license is they are allowing you to do something which would previously be considered unlawful... like say using public roads for private profit. Traveling in your privately owned conveyance is not in that category legal or lawful jurisdiction.

I have not drove in over 2 years, I do not seek license to do so because I now travel. It may be a hassle to get your standing and file all the paperwork you need to let them know you mean business but I suggest you all research this matter further and help educate your local law enforcement and others.

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-19-2011, 07:50 PM
^ My dad took this approach and all it did was get him labelled a trouble maker. It escalated to the point in which 2 Cops illegally enetered our home and tazed him for over 30 seconds. Unless you know ALL the rules of law and jurisdiction, this in itself is a trap. Its like knowing one secret to combat an enemy versus completely knowing your enemy.

While I agree to all that was said, its a nightmare and will make your life miserable in the long run.

BlueDragon
01-19-2011, 08:00 PM
oh i forgot to tie it into the original post about exhaust noise... The officer should be able to pull you over in a residential only where others rights to peace are or could be trespassed upon. The ucc codes he sights to tell you what you are doing is wrong only apply to drivers and "motor vehicles" those vehicles required to be registered because they are being used for commercial purposes aka making a profit. So you should have been the one busting his balls for trying to wrongfully apply statutes when he should have known the common law reason he could pull over a traveler.

By the way Common Law is easily defined and outside of any other contract agreed to is the only application of LAW (not legal which is reference to contracts ucc being one stipulated you must fallow when you agree to your DL)

Common Law

Protects against trespass in the form of damage or injury to ones property or rights.
Protects contracts both written and verbal.

If you have not violated one of these things you are not a criminal.

another side note, any contract where full disclosure was not made as to what rights you would be giving up to assume the benefits of said contract, the contract is void because it was deceptive.
I know when I was 16 and went to get my license I was never told I had the choice of doing it or not, I could travel freely without it. Almost all of what they do now is procedurally incorrect because almost no-one calls their bluff, the badge and the gun and lights do just fine to convince everyone to agree or concent.

By the way next time that officer hits the lights and declares a state of emergency he might want to have a better reason than your exhaust being loud because that is a very serious to do when there is no emergency. He is performing in lawful terms as a terrorist.... not a very good idea now a days....

BlueDragon
01-19-2011, 08:07 PM
I agree... trying to apply this to your life without proper research is a very scary proposition. We all know the officers will act according to training rather than Lawful conduct unless standing is produced. After filing suit for the numerous violations they performed against your father and fallowing it up under common law will give you court authorized evidence you can present upon stop by any officer that if he intends to proceed unlawfully he will be held fully liable as others were previously. He may just think twice, and tell his buddies so. If you remain respectable and try to educate them rather than berate them they tend to react much better. Also the courts in your place may be too corrupt to get an actual judgment on an officer to pay damages, but you will at-least force the magistrate to dismiss the charges against you, which you can also get a printed record of to present to officers.

This is not for the lazy it has taken years of research to change the brainwashing i received my entire youth.

Fox 21 Alpha
01-20-2011, 03:08 AM
^Not to be an ass, but before you recommend this to your average citizen, I'd like to see where the above has been proven and upheld by a court of law, and not by your personal interpretation of legal texts, which once again, referring to my old post, don't get too wrapped up in as things change. Any cases you can reference?

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-20-2011, 03:17 AM
Fox,

There have been a few. Some cases get dropped because the courts see them as a nuisance. My dads current case MIGHT be resolved this year. If he had paid a lawyer and kept his mouth shut, this would have ended 6 years ago. I love my father dearly, I have read everything he's provided and I agree with it. The fact remains, he spent 10x the amount and got into far more trouble proving his rights.

geebes
01-20-2011, 05:33 AM
that is so funny, I would never consider that exhaust loud...deep maybe. Not as loud as all the hicks w turbo diesel trucks in north idaho...he was hoping to find a reason to get you in trouble.

BlueDragon
01-20-2011, 04:33 PM
Actually I warned against applying this with only common knowledge. Main problem is everyone assumes the status of citizen... not realizing by definition a citizen is subject unto the jurisdiction of sovereigns. The Government flips the polarity so to speak on the standing by making you assume they are the sovereign and you are subject just by you declaring yourself a citizen.
They hide from you the fact that as a member of the We the People you are sovereign and the government is there as your subject to serve you and protect you and your rights and the rights and property of others.
The 14th amendment in practice did not free the slaves is tricked us all into agreeing to be equal slaves as this new beast the citizen, thus removing your authority to tell them how they may or may not serve you, outside of you trespassing on someones rights or property...and of-course breach of contract.
Refuse consent and do not seek an benefit and no subjection is implied.

Citizen. In general. A member of a free city or jural society, possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties.
In American law. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States (a corporation not a country or union, your state is its own country), or of a particular state, and by virtue of birth or naturalization within the jurisdiction, is a member of a political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. (being a resident)

By the way the term civil rights appears NOWHERE in the constitution or amendments they are better lawfully defined as "civil privileges" which can be withheld from you at any time for any reason.

Resident. One who has his residence in a place.
"Resident" and "inhabitant" are distinguishable in meaning. The word "inhabitant" implies a more fixed and permanent abode than does "resident;" and a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges or subject to all the duties of an inhabitant.
Also a tenant, who was obliged to reside on his lord's land, and not to depart from the same;

What I have to ask all of you resident citizens is... whom is your lord??? If you believe you own your home or property please look at your deed, it lists you as tenant not owner. This is why they can take your home or land at any time for not paying your rent on it known as property tax. Also anytime anyone accuses you of anything, without any conviction they can demand you remain resident in the county you offended in, you are no more in legal terms than a slave.

However the sovereign authority that allowed this government to exist and still does through ignorance or otherwise being lazy, has and always will lay with "We the People" as enumerated in the Constitution for the united states. Citizens are under a corporations private contract known as the Constitution of the United States. They have duplicated so as not to tip you off by changing only one word in the title and seemingly retaining all the same rights as the original, however the rights sighted as the corporation US are considered by them to be privileges. They dupe you into agreeing to slavery and you do not even know it.

Also they brainwash the children in school all about civil rights and how we live in a democracy. This is the real reason for removing the pledge from school. They cannot effectively teach we live in a democracy when they swear allegiance to the REPUBLIC every day now can they???? It had little to do with God, or the false assertion of "separation of church and state" which does not exist.

http://www.timetracts.com/republic_vs.htm

BlueDragon
01-20-2011, 04:51 PM
Subject. In constitutional law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises ; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws.
Webster. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.

Sovereigns declare the law, subjects obligated to fallow. This is in effect what you do when you file your own lawsuits, you state the law as the sovereign and place obligations on the recipient. If they do not respond properly you can easily file your own default judgment, you need not seek magistrate benefit, which is poor anyways. Also you can object and vacate any judgment made by anyone below your authority level as a sovereign (so long as it is not been proven you trespassed someones rights or property or breached a contract) so that even if your local court is corrupt and unlawfully tries to obligate you to pay some fine according to some UCC code you did not agree to, you can in effect nullify these things. This is one of the main protections of a republican form of government is that you are even protected from corruptible Government and courts. Most courts are now run as "combined courts" these are not courts of record, the only thing they record is your pleas and the outcome of the case, these are run under different rules than a Common Law court of record. If you do not demand them to act in the proper Jurisdiction you can really get in a-lot of trouble.

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-20-2011, 05:03 PM
Yes, yes. I've listened and understood this for 15 years.

There is even a legal argument over courts not being able to uphold jurisdiction over you because many stem from territorial courts granted powers from territory acts. They were never properly allocated powers in the state and thus their jurisdiction is in question. They technically uphold territorial laws that can't apply to sovereign states.

The sad truth is, as noble as these arguments and fights are, they are a honey trap in court. The more you argue, the more it binds you. The effort will only make your freedoms less in the end. I've watched this transpire over the years. Its sad, but the truth.

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-20-2011, 05:03 PM
Yes, yes. I've listened and understood this for 15 years.

There is even a legal argument over courts not being able to uphold jurisdiction over you because many stem from territorial courts granted powers from territory acts. They were never properly allocated powers in the state and thus their jurisdiction is in question. They technically uphold territorial laws that can't apply to sovereign states.

The sad truth is, as noble as these arguments and fights are, they are a honey trap in court. The more you argue, the more it binds you. The effort will only make your freedoms less in the end. I've watched this transpire over the years. Its sad, but the truth.

BlueDragon
01-20-2011, 05:23 PM
"Motor Vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property and cargo; ...
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business or any other undertaking intended for profit." 18 U.S.C. 31.

"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of." Hillhouse v United States. 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907)

V C Section 260 Commercial Vehicle
Commercial Vehicle

260. (a) A "commercial vehicle" is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.

(b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.

(c) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.

"First it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary use is for private purposes, and their primary preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally atleast, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson v. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs. Banton, 264 US, 140, and cases cited; Frost and F Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad Commission vs. Intercity Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Coorporative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A 313.

BlueDragon
01-20-2011, 05:31 PM
Problem is when people get stuck in the honey of bureaucracy they stop struggling and send out the demand that anyone else in the honey stops struggling lest we all sink in deeper. Never knowing if we all struggle we can knock the whole dame bee hive off or at the very least help one another to overcome the honey, which they feed you with and trap you with at the same time. Nobody would dare fight the hive that feeds them, much easier to be a good little drone and just drown? Not for me my friend. This attitude is why this country is moving more and more toward national socialism more commonly known as Nazism. "And then they came for me,and therre was nobody left to speak out"

BlueDragon
01-20-2011, 06:20 PM
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 ILL. 200, 169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834, Ligare v. Chicago, 138 ILL. 46, 28 NE 934, Boone v. Clark, 214 SW 607; 25 AM JUR (1st) Highways, Sec. 163.

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-20-2011, 06:47 PM
Unfortunately, when you agree to a complex, taxed and regulated motor vehicle as your mode of transportation and choose public, untolled government maintained roads, which you pay taxes for, using a driver's license for, all with state registration on the vehicle; you're already deep in the honey trap.

BlueDragon
01-20-2011, 07:05 PM
Correct, but once your registration runs out and you no longer seek to renew it it is no longer considered a motor vehicle, whether or not you continue to use the plate for their benefit of identification of your property were you to cause harm or would someone need to file claim against you. Also you can have a drivers license and choose not to present it, you only have to use that when you are driving. You can make your own identification and have it notarized. Notary are a part of the same government he is in league with so he cannot refuse it as valid ID. What he really is trying to get at is your presenting your driving contract which tells him hey you can assume this person is driving right now (which they always do anyway). I still have yet to decide the best way to deal with the plate issue though....

Best bet probably is make your own unique plates to identify your not for hire private conveyance and file notices with the court and all law enforcement agencies in your area. However you must understand this will no doubt incur much more scrutiny from the police officers. I have not figured out whether or not you purchase your plate and only rent the sticker or what exactly, if they stop me and claim I am using their property I guess I will change my tactic, but as for now my out of date plate causes less ruckus. Also I must state I am not looking for exemption from liability here this is the main reason for keeping a previously registered number plate, they have no excuse to say you cannot be held accountable for damages or trespass complains from other people.

As you can understand not many people have the nerve to try and do what is right and stand for the truth so there are a few examples of what people are doing based on their research. Some appear to be working even inside the several states here. I will see if I can find the paper work I think it was in Arizona where one of the top officials wrote notifying law enforcement people had properly rescinded their contracts concerning driving and were traveling within their common law rights.

VikingJZ
01-20-2011, 07:11 PM
Hookecho check in!

I've suffered equally. I got pulled over in Princess for my license plate cover. It was CLEAR. It's hassling. Plain and simple. I see a bazzilion cars in ATL with no working brake lights and they pull ME over. Who's more of a hazard on the road? It's because we drive rice cars and dumb people street race. I'm a 45 year old airline captain, homeowner and taxpayer but because I drive a souped up "fast and furious" car I'm obviously trouble.


Right.

Indiana has a plate cover/trim law. However, the State Police around here have an unmarked tan Trailblazer with a chrome license plate trim frame with a Chevy bow tie on each side. So, conveniently, I have a picture of it at a stop and a close up of the plate. (Thanks to it being at a gas station). That way if I get stopped for it, I can say "Well its okay for ISP, but not me, right?"

Fortunately, they don't really care.

Townies around here love the license plate lights as an excuse to stop you. However, two squad cars in my town have both of them burned out. Again, its okay because its cop car, but not okay because I'm a civilian and a young male driving an import car.

Pertaining to stops in general...

It still boils down to your attitude and the cop's attitude. If you are immediately shitty for any reason, you're going to get a ticket. If you're speeding at an obnoxious pace for no reason other than to burn five minutes off of your commute, you deserve a ticket.

Here is the kicker: Many cops are understanding if you are cooperative and aren't a shit head. However, there will ALWAYS be cops that are only cops because they couldn't hack it in any other job, couldn't get into college, and were unpopular in high school. Those are the guys that bring a negative reputation to being a police officer.

That doesnt mean that for every cop you need to start belting out the "I am sorry, Officer" "Yes, sir, Officer" comments. That gets annoying, I'm sure. Because there is another aspect to a stop that many people do not realize, especially the officers: Respect is earned, not given. Just because you are a cop does NOT mean that everyone needs to bow down and treat you as royalty in an attempt to get out of a ticket. I have never addressed a cop during a traffic stop as "Sir" or "Officer." The same goes from the cops perspective, as I have corrected cops for referring to me as "Young man" or "Son." I consider that condescending and disrespectful, but that's my opinion and feeling, as it may not be offensive to others. The one time a cop referred to me as son, I politely told him he's not my father and I would appreciate it of him to not do that again. He apologized profusely and claimed he didn't think anything of it. That's fine, just have respect.

Attitude makes all the difference guys, so allow officers the chance say what they need to say and do the same when its your time to talk.

Follow the laws of your state. If you have a copy of the statutes for tint and exhaust or other modifications handy, or accessible via the web, print a copy out and keep it in your car. In many places, the cop has to use a machine do determine the percentage of your tint AT THE STOP. Same for the exhaust.

Keep this stuff in mind and you'll probably get less tickets.

BlueDragon
01-20-2011, 07:18 PM
You must produce registration for it to apply, just the plate alone is not enough to show proof of any contract. This is why that is one of the main things he asks for right off the bat so he can take his preferred standing and jurisdiction which is you are below him because his codes have color of law by your consent through contract. The best he can do with out that is try and charge you with driving without a license which is funny because saying you have no DL is more proof in your favor, you just have to recover your standing, never understand. Whenever an officer is going to arrest you he is obligated to ask if you understand.

BlueDragon
01-20-2011, 07:23 PM
Right... what you just described is applying law unequally and that too is gross negligence which is equal to fraud. He could if convicted lose all monetary and assets gained by said fraudulent actions. Not a very smart idea if you ask me. If the cop decides whether or not to ticket you based on your attitude rather rightfully applied color of law he is a criminal trespassing upon the rights of those he punishes unequally.

BlueDragon
01-20-2011, 07:30 PM
You also have to remember the UCC codes your asking people to have as reference only apply to motor vehicles and drivers, they cannot impose those regulations on private property up until it trespasses someone or their property. If your the only car on the highway and you go 100 rather than 75 whom are you hurting? Nobody. The same goes for their ability to stop you if they think a crime is going to be committed this also assumes your under color of law. Under color of law a crime is simply defined as a violation of any code. Under common law a crime has to have a damaged party. These guys take an oath to uphold your rights as people and that they understand they are under the restrictions of the Constitution and Amendments there of. If they do not differentiate between legal and lawful and wrongfully apply legality to a lawful action or someone acting with lawful excuse they are wrong plain and simple.

BlueDragon
01-20-2011, 07:51 PM
wow ultimate thread jack i just realized haha sorry man I think I have said enough I hope this info helps some of you if you seek free travel. PM me if you want more info.

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-20-2011, 08:02 PM
If your the only car on the highway and you go 100 rather than 75 whom are you hurting? Nobody.

There are several ways to interpret that, which is a judge's role in the entire thing.

If you lose control and kill yourself, then you are hurting yourself. Or, if you lose control (speeds are implemented based on what is considered and voted safe) crash and become a hazard for other motorist who may imperal their lives from your "reckless" driving, then you're hurting other drivers. How about if you lose control and fly off the road, crashing your car and destroying someone's property? Or the fire from the crash destroy's public property?

If I burn a large fire in a place that is declared a fire emergency area, I'm not hurting anyone. However, I could POTENTIALLY spark an uncontrolled fire, destroying other's property or hurting someone with the blaze. Its not always about the present, but also the future.

Facime
01-20-2011, 08:15 PM
No offense BlueDragon but you sound like you went from one brainwash to another. You are under the misconception that this country operates in a common law state still. That system hasnt existed for a long time. The US constitution expressly allows the governing bodies to enact statutory law, and in doing so trickles down the rights of each state to do the same. There are still a few "common law" carryovers like where it applies to marriage for example, but even with that few states even recognize it.

You live under a statutory legal state of government. You can fight that all you want, but the fact of the matter, for good or bad, the "legal system" wont recognize a "lawful" act of travel on roads. The state "owns" the roads and therefor can and DOES require your cooperation to ensure everyones safety upon them.

I wish driving WAS a right, but so long as the courts repeatedly uphold the position that its a privilage granted by the state you live in...good luck using that to get out of a ticket and/or fine.

BlueDragon
01-21-2011, 12:18 AM
you obviously didn't even read my posts I never stated driving was a right. It is much too deep for you to read an entire post I see how you cannot see past the deception.

BlueDragon
01-21-2011, 12:21 AM
The "state" is a legal fiction created by the people to serve the people it cannot "own" anything outright. Did you not see the case law i posted stating the roads are common not owned or private? Honestly read before you reply.

geebes
01-21-2011, 02:26 AM
you obviously didn't even read...

You obviously didnt read that we dont give a damn...haha

Hookecho
01-21-2011, 03:05 AM
Rep for Facime. Enjoy those 2 extra green lights.

Hookecho
01-21-2011, 03:07 AM
You too Geebes.

187flatliner
01-21-2011, 03:15 AM
blue dragon......not to get "in" it with you....but if you sovereign yourself...guess what they will DEPORT your ass......but guess what also,....you will stay at i.n.s. jail till a country wants you. believe you me it will be a long ass time. just to prove a point.

Fox 21 Alpha
01-21-2011, 03:30 AM
Your posts are interesting, but seeing as Federal Agencies are not the one doing most of the traffic stops, the Federal Cases and codes from the 1900s you reference do not have much carry over to a modern day traffic stop by a local or state government. State and local police usually are enforcing state code, which according to your post, states are their own county, and have their own laws. As such the definition of motor vehicle, roadway, commercial vehicle, etc, etc are all different, state to state. And I can tell you most state's laws definitions broadly cover any motorized vehicle used on most any roadway on public property.

Speaking of which its not the definitions in Webster and other dictionary that the law references. You taking text out of legal statutes, and apply outside definitions to them, which is false. Most every crimes code and vehicle code and so on has pages and pages in the beginning describing what the law considers a motor vehicle, a roadway, a firearm, what type of injuries are simple assault and what type of injuries are aggravated assault, and so on.

It seems you think the government is wrong in its jurisdiction, which you may be right or wrong, but that is something you need to take to court as a whole case overall, not by fighting simple vehicle code statues and trying to find loopholes in the law to allow you to do whatever you want on the roadway. However, I do find it interesting you take an anarchist-like viewpoint and attitude, and attempt to put it to the law and turn it on itself.

Facime
01-21-2011, 03:53 AM
you obviously didn't even read my posts I never stated driving was a right. It is much too deep for you to read an entire post I see how you cannot see past the deception.

:screwy:

You might try reading something about the law of the state (meaning 1 of 50) you live in. There is no point in even argueing this with you I can see. Enjoy your "lawful" endeavors.



Edit: Ive obviously offended you and I honestly didnt mean to. I think what I was trying to say is that based on your posts and how you described your father I really get the impression that your understanding of law (and probably alot more) comes from your dad. Since you mention he is currently embrioled in a long drawn out and expensive legal battle, I might caution you to reevalute who you are considering an expert and what you do with that information. You might want to take your own advice and not believe everything you hear or read on the internet. If not, you might find yourself in a similiar position.

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-21-2011, 07:13 AM
Edit: Ive obviously offended you and I honestly didnt mean to. I think what I was trying to say is that based on your posts and how you described your father I really get the impression that your understanding of law (and probably alot more) comes from your dad. Since you mention he is currently embrioled in a long drawn out and expensive legal battle, I might caution you to reevalute who you are considering an expert and what you do with that information. You might want to take your own advice and not believe everything you hear or read on the internet. If not, you might find yourself in a similiar position.

No, you mean MY dad. This is why I relate to what Blue Dragon is saying.

He's not completely inccorect. There are legal arguments for a lot of what he's said. My dad actually consulted with a lawyer who teaches this type of procedure. It CAN work, but not in every case. Honestly, the problem is, you can pay the fine and be done with it. Or you can pay a lawyer and be done with it. Or you can grab your ankles and be prepared to take all the legal BS the system can dish.

Appealing, arguing, denying and refusing over question of jurisdiction, etc just makes a mess. My dad is about to get things to work in the end, but the situation he is in because of this route is a huge cluster f***. Its taken a lot of his time, which is ok, he's retired, but its also snow balled into other things that were costly. He's in agreement with the rest of us, it was too much effortt.

BlueDragon
01-21-2011, 11:06 PM
Yeah it is not easy, you do have to apply it to everything not just driving... I do not use anything as a loop hole. I am not an anarchist or revolutionary. The government that wants to tell you this is a democracy rather than a republic are the ones overthrowing the rightful lawful government. What they do is fine if you agree with them, but in a republic if 99% of people agree to violate the rights of the 1% it is still wrong to do so and there is recourse at law available. That is all I am trying to show you all. If you like your benefits go ahead and take part but do not force your choice on others.

BlueDragon
01-21-2011, 11:10 PM
You obviously didnt read that we dont give a damn...haha
This is the exact thing anyone in Germany when the NAZI party was coming to popular support would have said as long as they were not a Jew being persecuted. Then after the war destroyed their country and most of Europe they wished they had listened to all the stupid people like me that care about individual rights.... very patriotic geebes.... on the verge of national socialist even. Well "educated" are we?

chickenstomp
01-21-2011, 11:29 PM
This is the exact thing anyone in Germany when the NAZI party was coming to popular support would have said as long as they were not a Jew being persecuted. Then after the war destroyed their country and most of Europe they wished they had listened to all the stupid people like me that care about individual rights.... very patriotic geebes.... on the verge of national socialist even. Well "educated" are we?

Come on, you completely de-railed my thread and you're just bashing people now. This thread is for talking about specific encounters with law enforcement

mtp_69_i
01-22-2011, 01:36 AM
Come on, you completely de-railed my thread and you're just bashing people now. This thread is for talking about specific encounters with law enforcement

agreed it was a thread jack, initially it fit with the way the thread was going and plenty of replies kept the ball rolling but yeah, overall it's not really in line with talk about specific law enforcement encounter stories. That said, Geebes' reply was pretty inane, there was no need to take the piss out of Blue saying no one cares. If Geebes doesn't care then cool that's his perogative, there was no need to jump up and be a smart alek about it.

@Blue - don't rise to that kind of sh!t man. People will often not agree with you (most don't seem to here), speculating on whether their comments are nationalistic isn't gonna help and suggesting they're not educated just gets everyone agitated. You've obviously put a lot of thought into this topic (more than most), perhaps a discussion for another forum/thread.

geebes
01-22-2011, 04:28 AM
This is the exact thing anyone in Germany when the NAZI party was coming to popular support would have said as long as they were not a Jew being persecuted. Then after the war destroyed their country and most of Europe they wished they had listened to all the stupid people like me that care about individual rights.... very patriotic geebes.... on the verge of national socialist even. Well "educated" are we?

Well, Actually...yes. I didn't necessarily major in world history, Jewish history, German history, nor law, however; masters in communication studies and public relations is not exactly considered "lower learning" where I come from. Thanks for your insight. In your forementioned theory, do you consider yourself a Jew being persecuted? Because I'm having a hard time understanding your point. Then again as you pointed out so cleverly with quotation marks, indicating sarcasm in this instance, I'm poorly educated, and possibly a Nazi.

Car_Barn_Bandit
01-22-2011, 04:42 AM
I'm poorly educated, and possibly a Nazi.

That's all the proof I need to get ahold of Zionists.

Facime
01-22-2011, 06:25 AM
I can spot a "Beckian" when I see it!

My experience with people who immediately question another intelligence or "higher learning" in a forum on a topic like this. is that they are insecure fringe citizens that fight logic with conspiracy theories or just plain incomprehensible babble that they heard someone else say and take it as original thought...

But what do I know, I "cant read"

:blah:

90ToyAllTrac
01-22-2011, 07:17 AM
Because of the size of the town, college town, PD social climate or whatever. They only care about DUI's. Thats it. They get a high from it. I heard a great story tonight that is a shining example of how they care so little for the people they are supposed to be serving. Ive a friend that does loss prevention in the store I used to work at. He caught this drunk homeless pregnant american indian woman shoplifing this week. The cops actually turned her loose immediatly from the store. They coulda took her to detox, hospital, lockup. Nope, you got nothing we can take. Later, see ya.

T-spoon
01-22-2011, 07:18 AM
Awww, clearly I missed an interesting topic. Unfortunately it's too far in for me to feel like reading and replying intelligently. So I guess I'll be boring and sort of post on topic:

I have to fight a parking ticket in March for breaking down and having my car stuck on the side of the road for an evil five or six hours! I more blame the people of this city for making such a boondoggle out of a little snow than I do the police for having my car towed though, even though it wasn't blocking traffic. I think(hope) it will be merely a formality to have it dismissed.

T-spoon
01-22-2011, 07:20 AM
Because of the size of the town, college town, PD social climate or whatever. They only care about DUI's. Thats it. They get a high from it. I heard a great story tonight that is a shining example of how they care so little for the people they are supposed to be serving. Ive a friend that does loss prevention in the store I used to work at. He caught this drunk homeless pregnant american indian woman shoplifing this week. The cops actually turned her loose immediatly from the store. They coulda took her to detox, hospital, lockup. Nope, you got nothing we can take. Later, see ya.

Huh? So what is it, they like taking stuff from people or they only respond to DUIs? Ya lost me..

90ToyAllTrac
01-22-2011, 07:38 AM
My point was that they dont care about helping people. Whether its the paper work or whatever. They just care about thier DUI quota. Thats what they do here. Occasionally they catch a car prowler at 4am. But otherwise...

Fox 21 Alpha
01-22-2011, 03:51 PM
Cause its completely relevant that she was an American Indian

Blackcloud
01-22-2011, 04:09 PM
drunk homeless pregnant american indian woman shoplifing.

this sums up about 99% of the worthless ass indians in this area.

geebes
01-22-2011, 05:32 PM
this sums up about 99% of the worthless ass indians in this area.
+1