Funny vid where cop doesn't know the rules he is enforcing

sudden valley gunner said:

Eye95 doesn't thing the powers of police should be numerated. I believe all government powers are numerated. If they can't cite the reason for violating your 4th, than they simply shouldn't violate your 4th.

Click to expand...

The bolded part's a stretch, don't you think?

Also, I'm pretty sure they can cite it quite well once they look up the statute that covers the infraction the individual in question comitted. You don't have to be able to quote "When a traffic signal is emitting a steady red circular light controlling traffic approaching an intersection, an approaching vehicle facing the red light shall come to a stop and shall not enter the intersection" to know someone ran a red light and that you aren't allowed to do that. You just have to know that you can't run a red light, know what constitutes running a red light, and be able to look up "did unlawfully and willfully operate a motor vehicle on a street or highway by entering an intersection while a traffic signal was emitting a steady red circular light for traffic in defendant's direction G.S. 20-158(b)(2)".

To try to help clarify signing a ticket. Traffic citations are actually a traffic arrest, at one time it was common for bond to be posted during a traffic stop. This was usually surrendering the drivers license, or posting a cash bond, or signing a notice to appear. It became inappropriate to incarcerate drivers for minor traffic violations and states moved to signature instead of bond. Florida courts have ruled that a driver may not be arrested for refusing to sign, and instead the ticket is marked hand delivered by the arresting/ticketing officer. The officer in this video clearly was an idiot who did not know the law. But the driver was trying intentionally to skew with him, though reprehensible it is not a crime to skew with a police officer.

sudden valley gunner said:

If they can't cite the reason for violating your 4th, than they simply shouldn't violate your 4th.

Click to expand...

This cop explains it quite well, starting at 3:40 (NSFW language):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Kw9-vTJYs

[video=youtube;x7Kw9-vTJYs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Kw9-vTJYs[/video]

:shocker:

KBCraig said:

This cop explains it quite well, starting at 3:40 (NSFW language):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Kw9-vTJYs

[video=youtube;x7Kw9-vTJYs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Kw9-vTJYs[/video]

:shocker:

Click to expand...

Wow that caught me off guard, I am sure it did the driver also, talk about jekyll and hyde.

Really? Did.... did that just happen?

W... T... F...

Kivuli said:

The bolded part's a stretch, don't you think?

Also, I'm pretty sure they can cite it quite well once they look up the statute that covers the infraction the individual in question comitted. You don't have to be able to quote "When a traffic signal is emitting a steady red circular light controlling traffic approaching an intersection, an approaching vehicle facing the red light shall come to a stop and shall not enter the intersection" to know someone ran a red light and that you aren't allowed to do that. You just have to know that you can't run a red light, know what constitutes running a red light, and be able to look up "did unlawfully and willfully operate a motor vehicle on a street or highway by entering an intersection while a traffic signal was emitting a steady red circular light for traffic in defendant's direction G.S. 20-158(b)(2)".

Click to expand...

I need to clarify whether it's my understanding they are numerated or Eyes that they are not? Because he said so himself in another thread. That if it isn't illegal its legal. I don't believe that applies to constitutionally limited government, which the police are part of.

Any time I have been cited by an officer for anything the law was written on the ticket. I don't think it's necessary or even possible for cops to memorize verbatim, the 100's of thousands of laws we have in this supposedly free country. So I agree with your cited example. But if he simply needs to cite the reason for your detention. IF he is unsure you broke the law or not, he needs to leave you alone. Laws need to be obvious and make commons sense.

sudden valley gunner said:

I need to clarify whether it's my understanding they are numerated or Eyes that they are not? Because he said so himself in another thread. That if it isn't illegal its legal. I don't believe that applies to constitutionally limited government, which the police are part of.

Click to expand...

I think he might have been saying that police have enumerated powers that sometimes have a fairly broad scope and are not repeated for every possible instance. Or I may be misreading the thread.

Any time I have been cited by an officer for anything the law was written on the ticket. I don't think it's necessary or even possible for cops to memorize verbatim, the 100's of thousands of laws we have in this supposedly free country. So I agree with your cited example. But if he simply needs to cite the reason for your detention. IF he is unsure you broke the law or not, he needs to leave you alone. Laws need to be obvious and make commons sense.

Click to expand...

Bolded part I agree with mostly. This is where Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause come into play. To allow for figuring out for certain whether a law has been broken. And, if none has, then I absolutely agree the individual should be immediately let free to his own devices with an apology from the officer in question.

Underlined part I agree with in principle, but holy cow good luck getting that one by the lawyers! :banghead:

The cop in the original video needs to find another line of work. I hope the kid went to court to fight the three citations he got for 'not signing' after the cop told him he didn't have to sign. Also the cop pretending he couldn't hear the kid because the window wasn't all the way down was just plain petty. And the whole "Don't read the ticket information, just sign it and then give it to me and I'll tell you what it says..."

Umm..no. I'll read it for myself, thanks anyway.

As for the discussion about whether or not a cop should be able to cite the law, I don't expect him to rattle off a page and paragraph notation like officer Friday on DRAGNET, but he should be able to give a coherent reason for stopping someone.

And he should be able to explain the ticket process.

And if he doesn't know, he should use the reference materials that were issued to him and are probably sitting in the cruiser before he starts making up answers.

Kivuli said:

I think he might have been saying that police have enumerated powers that sometimes have a fairly broad scope and are not repeated for every possible instance. Or I may be misreading the thread.

Click to expand...

Eye95 wrote:

I don't want the law in this nation changed to where things we are allowed to do are enumerated. I prefer a system whereby we (including LEOs) are free to do anything not explicitly prohibited by law

Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement and feel LEO as being part of government are constitutionally restricted and their powers enumerated, and am horrified at the fact many (including LEO) don't feel this way. But of course since he has me on ignore some things could be lost in translation and I may be mistaken too.

Kivuli said:

Bolded part I agree with mostly. This is where Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause come into play. To allow for figuring out for certain whether a law has been broken. And, if none has, then I absolutely agree the individual should be immediately let free to his own devices with an apology from the officer in question.

Underlined part I agree with in principle, but holy cow good luck getting that one by the lawyers! :banghead:

Click to expand...

I know right!

Personally I feel RAS is a constitutional intrusion, but understand the premise of it and have asked officers for it while being detained for OC. (Which they couldn't do). To me this still supports the premise of them citing a reason for your detention, what I don't like is them feeling they don't have to or making something up to try to rationalize their illegal violation of your fourth. Like being told "suspicous activity" like I was.

Kivulu a very interesting read is 'Tryanny Through Good Intentions' by Roberts, and Stratton. It really breaks down the fundamentals of how our "justice" system is supposed to work explaining our Blackstone foundations. When you learn how we are supposed to operate you get pretty upset about what we have become.

sudden valley gunner said:

Eye95 wrote:
I disagree with this statement and feel LEO as being part of government are constitutionally restricted and their powers enumerated, and am horrified at the fact many (including LEO) don't feel this way. But of course since he has me on ignore some things could be lost in translation and I may be mistaken too.

Click to expand...

I gotcha. Yes, I agree that governmental powers absolutely should be enumerated. My only caveat is that some of them must necessarily be of broader scope so that the mission isn't hamstrung. "Provide for the common defense" for example, could be broken down into a billion tiny powers. Some of which I absolutely think should not be included, but that's what the courts are (supposedly) for.

I know right!

Personally I feel RAS is a constitutional intrusion, but understand the premise of it and have asked officers for it while being detained for OC. (Which they couldn't do). To me this still supports the premise of them citing a reason for your detention, what I don't like is them feeling they don't have to or making something up to try to rationalize their illegal violation of your fourth. Like being told "suspicous activity" like I was.

Click to expand...

RAS can definitely be an intrusion, I won't even try to deny that one. At the risk of invoking a famous Ben Franklin quote though, right up until an LEO sees a guy walking down a street with a paper bag in one hand and gun in the other and lets him go about his business because holding those two items isn't a crime. Then the community screams "Why didn't he stop the guy?! Clearly he was the one who robbed the bank ten minutes earlier! It was freaking obvious!". They can't win for losing if that's the case. The key is abuse of RAS, and that's a sticky wicket.

Kivuli a very interesting read is 'Tryanny Through Good Intentions' by Roberts, and Stratton. It really breaks down the fundamentals of how our "justice" system is supposed to work explaining our Blackstone foundations. When you learn how we are supposed to operate you get pretty upset about what we have become.

Click to expand...

Being in a front-row seat to see how our justice system currently works, I can tell you that I'm already pretty upset. I'll check out the book though!

For more interesting reading check out Google Books for Law of Agency and Corpus Juris

Kivuli said:

I gotcha. Yes, I agree that governmental powers absolutely should be enumerated. My only caveat is that some of them must necessarily be of broader scope so that the mission isn't hamstrung. "Provide for the common defense" for example, could be broken down into a billion tiny powers. Some of which I absolutely think should not be included, but that's what the courts are (supposedly) for.

Click to expand...

I agree that politicians and those in power believe clauses like the one you mentioned give them the authority to break it down into a billion tiny powers. But if they would pay attention to how the founders viewed clauses like that and the "welfare, and commerce" clause, they felt it was restricted by the 18 enumerated powers specifically spelled out. Of course we know that isn't the reality of modern bureaucrats.

Kivuli said:

RAS can definitely be an intrusion, I won't even try to deny that one. At the risk of invoking a famous Ben Franklin quote though, right up until an LEO sees a guy walking down a street with a paper bag in one hand and gun in the other and lets him go about his business because holding those two items isn't a crime. Then the community screams "Why didn't he stop the guy?! Clearly he was the one who robbed the bank ten minutes earlier! It was freaking obvious!". They can't win for losing if that's the case. The key is abuse of RAS, and that's a sticky wicket.

Click to expand...

I know it does create hardships for those who are entrusted with Law Enforcement, and the general population really are mislead about the role LEO are supposed to have in a "free" society. Although I know what you posted is just an example, most states would make that situation illegal already, and most criminals conceal. . But even if that wasn't the case, if I were a LEO in that situation there is nothing wrong with following the guy to the bank and stopping it in progress. But ideally an armed population would beat him to it.

Kivuli said:

Being in a front-row seat to see how our justice system currently works, I can tell you that I'm already pretty upset. I'll check out the book though!

Click to expand...

Having been through the human meat grinder of our "justice" system I am upset too. I read books like this and by Napolitano, and Thomas E Woods, and I am better able to articulate why our system is not a justice system anymore.

FireStar M40 said:

SouthernBoy said in part..



There are situations and circumstances where running a red light or stop sign is the prudent thing to do under some specific situations and circumstances.

By saying you have no sympathy for those same above drivers.. and that they should have the book thrown at them, just shows your inability to see things in different shades of grey.. instead of only Black or White.

FireStar M40

Click to expand...

"No cop, no stop" is the motto of PDR of Taxachusetts drivers. This video gave me a headache.