I got pulled over.

Sep 6, 2006
2,296
440
83
Southern California
#54
Kadams, a snowflake would have been either extremely mouthy, violent, or both. I was neither. The cop even told me appreciated the cooperation and level headedness. Because I calmly followed his orders and answered his questions truthfully. Sports car? I drive pickup. Standard cab. With a TOOLBOX mounted in the bed. Ya know, for work. Is that a target too? If it has wheels, its a target.


Just seemed like overkill. The guy did a U turn (he was coming at me) in the same stretch of road (double yellow line) in which I didnt signal a lane change. Seems very hypocritical. I was putting peoples lives in danger, but he wasnt? Lol yeah ok. And at the distance he was away from me, it would have been very difficult to see if I used a signal or not. Because I was turning onto the stretch of road he was already patrolling. I like how they always want to detain you, for his safety and "yours". Next time Ill choose to remain in my own vehicle. For my safety. Because the back of those cruisers are a mobile jail. No getting out. Bought a nice dashcam too. Been wanting to buy one for awhile anyway. Between that and my phone camera, ill be good. Since cops always expect the worst from people, Ill always expect the worst from cops. Always guilty until proven innocent. And why do cops get so pissed when they figure out theyre being recorded? If they have nothing to hide, or arent stepping on anybodys rights, why does it matter? Thats what they tell us. Not saying thats what happened to me, but in general. They want to record you (when it benefits them) but you cant record the officers. Makes sense.


Like I said earlier, 2 lifelong friends who are officers. Brother served in the Army. Pro LE and military. Im just going to cover my bases, for my safety. Even my 2 officer buddies admit there are power hungry cops on their force. And the local Trooper station is a prime example in regards to what happened to my friend. If id had ANY criminal history this may not have been such a "pleasant" traffic stop.

Just so you understand the terminology, the detention began when the stop was made, not when he put you in the back of the car. You can refuse to follow the cops order to exit the vehicle in the future, but that is an escalation on your part, since it would be deemed reasonable or him to have you exit (in the case of your encounter). Conversely, if on a traffic stop you want to get out and walk around on the sidewalk, he can deny you that. You are detained, and not free to do as you please.


Pretty common knowledge that drivers and their passengers can video these encounters. The problem arises when it becomes intrusive (passenger in your face while i’m condicting an investigation). Or the person being investigated won’t put the camera down, which is getting in the way of your investigation(field sobriety tests for example).

The more you describe your encounter, the better this Officer is looking, frankly. Try to broaden your perspective on this.
 

Skookum

Flattus Domini
May 6, 2017
722
614
93
Your mom's
#57
Well then Mr Mueller it should be pretty easy to explain what crime was being investigated.
The infraction for the stop was the lack of signal. The matter being investigated was a reasonable suspicion of sex trafficking, or maybe simply a run away minor.

You don't always investigate crimes that you know have been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a crime MAY have been committed, then that is more than sufficient for further detention until the truth can be ascertained. The length of a constitutional detention is a gray area that largely depends on the totality of the circumstances being investigated.

Is that good enough for you? All this is settled case law that has withstood literally decades of higher court challenges.

Although innocent, this whole situation had strange written all over it to anyone who notices the normal and the abnormal for a living.
 

Ric O'shay

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 12, 2018
132
157
43
Titletown USA
#58
I got pulled over a couple weeks ago. Did not come to a complete stop on a country road stop sign. Went with the super polite strategy thinking I would get a warning as it was a officer from my home turf. Have not been pulled over sience the late 1980's Admitted I made a 98% stop, got a slight laugh out of him on that. Did everything by the book, Supplied my lic. and CC card. Hands on the wheel, full yes sir reply to everything.
No dice, looks like I contribute $98 to the Village.
I expected a break, but sometimes(every time) you have no control over the discretion of the officer.
With the OP I can see why he seperated the parties involved. Seems like the right call. Perhaps a warning for being in violation of only a minor infraction would have been a decent, and better ending to both encounters.
 

ExT

Private
Jan 14, 2018
53
6
8
#59
Problem of us these on judging people is that we never put ourselves in their position before making a judgment. You may be still young for having a teenager in your home, But you can ask everyone who has at least a 14-17 girl in their family and you’ll know the answers. While I’m not suggesting 100% cops out there are good cops, but at least we can agree not everyone is the bad one.
 

sirhrmechanic

Command Sgt. Major
Feb 23, 2010
10,423
10,928
113
53
The Snobbiest Town in The Snobbiest State in the N
#60
Can we agree that failure to signal for a lane change, while a legal reason to stop, is about as ticky-tacky as a moving violation gets...especially in the middle of the night when there is no traffic?

Where are those cops when people are driving 10 under the limit in the passing lane, or in the rain without their headlights on?
I took down more DUI's for a headlight out... than for any other reason.

I also stopped a lot of people with a headlight out... and said "Sir/Ma'am... just wanted to let you know that you have a headlight out. Stay safe, please get that fixed, and have a great evening."

Probable cause is... probable cause. And when I was looking for stops... it was for simple things... that would let me give a warning for simple things.... orturn a simple thing into a major thing... when major things were going on. Simple things... failure to stop... weaving in lane... headlight out... The major thing they turned into???? DUI, escaped felon, illegals, major drug possession with intent to traffic... Here's a clue... if you are an escaped felon with a warrant? Come to a full stop at a stop sign!

Sounds like this officer did a great job in trying to make sure that a young'un wasn't in danger or being traffick'd or similar.

Very sorry for your inconvenience. It sucks when someone doing a great thing for a friend gets 'tagged' for it. But if one of those girls had been your daughter... you'd have been glad for the vigilance.

Cheers,

Sirhr
 
Mar 18, 2012
459
164
43
53
East TN
#61
Like I said. Proactive policing! If you are a hammer everything else looks like a nail?
The cop didn't know anything but is going to jump to sex trafficking or....... total BS to mine/fish.
Joe citizen didn't even get a ticket for the original excuse to be pulled over. The cop probably forgot what it was.
Posting crap about how the courts have ruled that these strong arm tactics are not unconstitutional doesn't change the facts. This cop was fishing and has the courts to back him. Yeah Fucking haw welcome to the police state. Papers please.......
 
Sep 6, 2006
2,296
440
83
Southern California
#62
Like I said. Proactive policing! If you are a hammer everything else looks like a nail?
The cop didn't know anything but is going to jump to sex trafficking or....... total BS to mine/fish.
Joe citizen didn't even get a ticket for the original excuse to be pulled over. The cop probably forgot what it was.
Posting crap about how the courts have ruled that these strong arm tactics are not unconstitutional doesn't change the facts. This cop was fishing and has the courts to back him. Yeah Fucking haw welcome to the police state. Papers please.......

Man, my job just got a whole lot easier, DarnYankee says I don’t have to investigate stuff anymore. Sweet! Hope that doesn’t involve a pay cut!
 
Likes: Dthomas3523

W54/XM-388

Online Training Member
Oct 1, 2005
2,469
2,057
113
Dallas, TX
#63
Perhaps a warning for being in violation of only a minor infraction would have been a decent, and better ending to both encounters.
That is where the arguments that stopping for minor infractions to verify all is good as a part of the job tend to often fall on their faces, when applied to actual situations.

So you stopped someone for something totally inconsequential, you say that you are doing so to make sure there is no crime involved.
You claim that experience says it is a good way to catch criminals doing things not yet reported.
So okay, reasonable argument, backed up by quite a few success stories, so good so far, hard to argue against.

So you find that all is good and they are law abiding citizens going about their lawful business.
Do you thank them for their time & cooperation & explain the infraction that they did that you stopped them for & admonish them to not do it again so as to make sure they don't find themselves inconvenienced by a stop again & that it would be best for everyone's safety on the roads to remember it.

So in situations like the one discussed in this thread, is that what happens?
Nope... Straight for relieving them of their hard earned money without a second thought.
A verbal warning would have served "public safety" just as good
A written warning would have served "public safety" just as good
But nope... take their money.

I personally feel very strongly that the use of law enforcement as revenue collection agents and pretty much insisting the police generate as much revenue as possible at each encounter (well proven, if you want to argue this is false, there is literally no end of proven issues), has been a huge factor in the corruption of the entire justice system & those that work for it.
 

Snuby642

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 11, 2017
589
239
43
#64
Power hungry cops, a total understatement for some of them.
In our town there are some very good police, most of them, but you always get exceptions, any town!
The main problem is you don't know what your getting anymore when they show up.
If that seems far fetched you haven't seen news in years.


The process protects bad cops most of the time, unless heaven forbid they shoot a black man.
Yes I did go there.
They have been instructed on how to question you to get the
results they wanted.
If they get crossways rigth off the bat you should just stop talking.

At that point you may have to be concerned if they are rational or not.

They might badger you, threaten you, and escilate to abuse in seconds because they can get away with it.
Comply if feasable, if not protect yourself.

These days leo may be more of a threat to your life than some ordinary bad guys no matter your level of compliance attempted.
It's on headline news every day.
 

Skookum

Flattus Domini
May 6, 2017
722
614
93
Your mom's
#65
Like I said. Proactive policing! If you are a hammer everything else looks like a nail?
The cop didn't know anything but is going to jump to sex trafficking or....... total BS to mine/fish.
Joe citizen didn't even get a ticket for the original excuse to be pulled over. The cop probably forgot what it was.
Posting crap about how the courts have ruled that these strong arm tactics are not unconstitutional doesn't change the facts. This cop was fishing and has the courts to back him. Yeah Fucking haw welcome to the police state. Papers please.......
You sir, seem to be beyond reasoning with. Would you be a frequent flyer perhaps?
 
Likes: Dthomas3523
Sep 6, 2006
2,296
440
83
Southern California
#66
That is where the arguments that stopping for minor infractions to verify all is good as a part of the job tend to often fall on their faces, when applied to actual situations.

So you stopped someone for something totally inconsequential, you say that you are doing so to make sure there is no crime involved.
You claim that experience says it is a good way to catch criminals doing things not yet reported.
So okay, reasonable argument, backed up by quite a few success stories, so good so far, hard to argue against.

So you find that all is good and they are law abiding citizens going about their lawful business.
Do you thank them for their time & cooperation & explain the infraction that they did that you stopped them for & admonish them to not do it again so as to make sure they don't find themselves inconvenienced by a stop again & that it would be best for everyone's safety on the roads to remember it.

So in situations like the one discussed in this thread, is that what happens?
Nope... Straight for relieving them of their hard earned money without a second thought.
A verbal warning would have served "public safety" just as good
A written warning would have served "public safety" just as good
But nope... take their money.

I personally feel very strongly that the use of law enforcement as revenue collection agents and pretty much insisting the police generate as much revenue as possible at each encounter (well proven, if you want to argue this is false, there is literally no end of proven issues), has been a huge factor in the corruption of the entire justice system & those that work for it.
How many times have you heard of someone getting stopped, for whatever reason, only to be released with no citation? What conclusion do those people who choose to tell their unhappy story very frequently come to? “He had no reason to stop me, that’s why he didn’t write me a ticket!” I’ve heard that way too many times to count. People relay that kind of story to me regularly, while I’m on duty. They want to get my take on the stop, just like 308220 is doing here with the hide. That decision to not write the citation, does get exercised thousands upon thousands of times per day in this country. From a different perspective, the paper trail(citation) can be looked at as a better approach. Now the officer can be called to testify in open court for his actions, instead of it being a single and minimally descriptive line on a time sheet. I agree the no ticket route is easier on the citizen, but it gets used an awful lot as evidence of misbehavior on the part of the officer.

It should also be noted that the PC for the stop in this case is a moving violation where I’m from, which would put a point on his driver license. The seatbelt violation is not. Maybe it’s different where he’s from.


Couldn’t agree with you more on fine amounts and how they’re used. Pure conflict of interest if they go towards law enforcement.
 
Last edited:

Skookum

Flattus Domini
May 6, 2017
722
614
93
Your mom's
#67
That is where the arguments that stopping for minor infractions to verify all is good as a part of the job tend to often fall on their faces, when applied to actual situations.

So you stopped someone for something totally inconsequential, you say that you are doing so to make sure there is no crime involved.
You claim that experience says it is a good way to catch criminals doing things not yet reported.
So okay, reasonable argument, backed up by quite a few success stories, so good so far, hard to argue against.

So you find that all is good and they are law abiding citizens going about their lawful business.
Do you thank them for their time & cooperation & explain the infraction that they did that you stopped them for & admonish them to not do it again so as to make sure they don't find themselves inconvenienced by a stop again & that it would be best for everyone's safety on the roads to remember it.

So in situations like the one discussed in this thread, is that what happens?
Nope... Straight for relieving them of their hard earned money without a second thought.
A verbal warning would have served "public safety" just as good
A written warning would have served "public safety" just as good
But nope... take their money.

I personally feel very strongly that the use of law enforcement as revenue collection agents and pretty much insisting the police generate as much revenue as possible at each encounter (well proven, if you want to argue this is false, there is literally no end of proven issues), has been a huge factor in the corruption of the entire justice system & those that work for it.
Another cop hater. Boy you guys come out of the woodwork don't you? And you can't even seem to really understand the chronology of a simple narrative.

1) Said driver is stopped for traffic violation
2) Cop notices that the three occupants of the vehicle don't seem to belong together
3) It's o'dark thirty. Odd that three strangers would be sharing a ride at this hour
4) Two are females, one is a juvenile and neither of the adults is her guardian.

This, for all you cop haters is called REASONABLE SUSPICION!
 
Last edited:

CrazyHorse_mk14

Native Injunuity
Mar 11, 2018
228
193
43
31
East Texas
#68
I personally feel very strongly that the use of law enforcement as revenue collection agents and pretty much insisting the police generate as much revenue as possible at each encounter (well proven, if you want to argue this is false, there is literally no end of proven issues), has been a huge factor in the corruption of the entire justice system & those that work for it.
The town adjacent to me brings in abt 250,000 a year on citations... population 1,200.

Not only keeps gas in their cruisers and all the new fancy whoo whoos. They keep gas in all the city’s shit including the big wed fire trucks. To say it’s a conflict of interest is a understatement!

Can’t make em go back to the old way they already tasted the money. Have to buckle up and drive very fuckin carefully in that town!
 
Mar 18, 2012
459
164
43
53
East TN
#69
Typical liberal BS. Right off the cliff. No one said don't investigate crimes. Fishing for one is wrong.
I take it from your response you are on the wrong side of the badge to understand.
The sex trafficking, under age daughter cover is all BS. It's just a cover for legal strong arming of a citizen. What you are espousing is that I should be OK with being frisked and stuck in the back of a cruiser because I failed to signal while I was driving home late with my daughter and a friend.
If you can't understand that. You have worked for the state too long and have lost your perspective. I understand that you deal with the dredges of society every day. But not everything is a nail and you really need to get some couch time.
Many times people have said that there are many good LEO's and military that won't side with the state when SHTF. Some of you make me question that.
 
Likes: gigamortis

W54/XM-388

Online Training Member
Oct 1, 2005
2,469
2,057
113
Dallas, TX
#70
Another cop hater. Boy you guys come out of the woodwork don't you? And you can't even seem to really understand the chronology of a simple narrative.

1) Said driver is stopped for traffic violation
2) Cop notices that the three occupants of the vehicle don't seem to belong together
3) It's o'dark thirty. Odd that three strangers would be sharing a ride at this hour
4) Two are females, one is a juvenile and neither of the adults is her guardian.

This, for all you cop haters is called REASONABLE SUSPICION!
I would have to respectfully suggest that it appears you may have incorrectly read the posting that I made.
If you read the opening of my post, it does in my opinion seem to clearly state that I didn't find any fault in the logic and argument behind making the initial stop or doing an investigation & that doing so was acceptable.

My disagreement with the events lay in the deciding to relieve the citizen of their money after having ascertained that no actual crime was happening & that how local (and national) governments relying on income from law enforcement encounters / operations is in my opinion highly detrimental to our society.

While I would welcome a robust discussion on the merits of reliving citizens of their money using the justice system so as to not appear to be raising taxes which is usually politically unpopular, I hardly think that qualifies me as a "hater".

The founders of our Great Republic understood that Government at each level while often needed & often useful was still a very dangerous entity that could easily be turned against the public that gave them their authority (all power, laws and authority coming only from and by will of the people). As such it was imperative that citizens actively took an interest in the actions of their government at each level to ensure their own freedoms, by setting limits on what the government was allowed to do and providing a robust discussion and active participation in public debate & decision making when various issues arose or limits were bumped up against.

In the end, it is both the duty & right of the citizens to determine through their elected officials and polices / laws that are passed, what laws we must follow and how they should be enforced & how public safety is ensured, while also not violating the rights of others as guaranteed by the constitution. This is the basis of why in modern times we have gone to a robust police force and court system. We have the police and the courts, so we can guarantee everyone's rights which are impossible to guarantee when law enforcement and societal order have to be handled on an ad hoc basis by mobs of the local town folk who tend to lean towards "find the usual suspects and string them up".

It would be unfactual to argue that the police forces all across this country are 100% of the time perfect saints and those that tell them what to do are also 100% perfect. One can strongly argue against the excesses they feel happen & the conditions that they are allowed to happen in & continue in, while still being very supportive of all those that choose the profession and honorably serve the public good & strongly condemning those in the profession who choose to step outside the lines or show exceptionally poor judgment / actions.

Just as one can be passionate about our country and our constitution and our greatness, while still passionately conversing publically about one's views that the politicians and systems of government are corrupted.

Just as one can be passionate about supporting our military, while still wishing to engage in the very needed public discussion and discourse on if our elected politicians are correctly using our military for things that are in the actual national interest and with the actual national long term good in mind, or are usurping it for various corporate and geopolitical gain of others not benefiting the country, or even if simply they have not properly taken into account the long term consequences of their actions.

I meant no offense to you & if you feel that that way, I would be happy to further discuss it, as I think perhaps it may be a simple miscommunication.
 
Sep 6, 2006
2,296
440
83
Southern California
#71
Typical liberal BS. Right off the cliff. No one said don't investigate crimes. Fishing for one is wrong.
I take it from your response you are on the wrong side of the badge to understand.
The sex trafficking, under age daughter cover is all BS. It's just a cover for legal strong arming of a citizen. What you are espousing is that I should be OK with being frisked and stuck in the back of a cruiser because I failed to signal while I was driving home late with my daughter and a friend.
If you can't understand that. You have worked for the state too long and have lost your perspective. I understand that you deal with the dredges of society every day. But not everything is a nail and you really need to get some couch time.
Many times people have said that there are many good LEO's and military that won't side with the state when SHTF. Some of you make me question that.
All we have to go by is written law, case law, and policy. In the case we’re discussing here, i think (and many other apparently)it’s pretty clear that those were adhered to. You’re entitled to you’re opinion, and my opinion is that you know very little about my job.
 
Likes: Dthomas3523

Skookum

Flattus Domini
May 6, 2017
722
614
93
Your mom's
#73
I would have to respectfully suggest that it appears you may have incorrectly read the posting that I made.
If you read the opening of my post, it does in my opinion seem to clearly state that I didn't find any fault in the logic and argument behind making the initial stop or doing an investigation & that doing so was acceptable.

My disagreement with the events lay in the deciding to relieve the citizen of their money after having ascertained that no actual crime was happening & that how local (and national) governments relying on income from law enforcement encounters / operations is in my opinion highly detrimental to our society.

While I would welcome a robust discussion on the merits of reliving citizens of their money using the justice system so as to not appear to be raising taxes which is usually politically unpopular, I hardly think that qualifies me as a "hater".

The founders of our Great Republic understood that Government at each level while often needed & often useful was still a very dangerous entity that could easily be turned against the public that gave them their authority (all power, laws and authority coming only from and by will of the people). As such it was imperative that citizens actively took an interest in the actions of their government at each level to ensure their own freedoms, by setting limits on what the government was allowed to do and providing a robust discussion and active participation in public debate & decision making when various issues arose or limits were bumped up against.

In the end, it is both the duty & right of the citizens to determine through their elected officials and polices / laws that are passed, what laws we must follow and how they should be enforced & how public safety is ensured, while also not violating the rights of others as guaranteed by the constitution. This is the basis of why in modern times we have gone to a robust police force and court system. We have the police and the courts, so we can guarantee everyone's rights which are impossible to guarantee when law enforcement and societal order have to be handled on an ad hoc basis by mobs of the local town folk who tend to lean towards "find the usual suspects and string them up".

It would be unfactual to argue that the police forces all across this country are 100% of the time perfect saints and those that tell them what to do are also 100% perfect. One can strongly argue against the excesses they feel happen & the conditions that they are allowed to happen in & continue in, while still being very supportive of all those that choose the profession and honorably serve the public good & strongly condemning those in the profession who choose to step outside the lines or show exceptionally poor judgment / actions.

Just as one can be passionate about our country and our constitution and our greatness, while still passionately conversing publically about one's views that the politicians and systems of government are corrupted.

Just as one can be passionate about supporting our military, while still wishing to engage in the very needed public discussion and discourse on if our elected politicians are correctly using our military for things that are in the actual national interest and with the actual national long term good in mind, or are usurping it for various corporate and geopolitical gain of others not benefiting the country, or even if simply they have not properly taken into account the long term consequences of their actions.

I meant no offense to you & if you feel that that way, I would be happy to further discuss it, as I think perhaps it may be a simple miscommunication.
I took the tone of your argument from the wording of you second paragraph. I interpreted it to be hostile. If that is not the case, then I apologize to you sir.
 
Mar 18, 2012
459
164
43
53
East TN
#74
You are missing the point. It's not about"case law" and what the courts have decided are legal tactics to strong arm a citizen.
It's about being a free citizen and an officer of the state taking advantage of their powers to subjugate.
Example is the OP. Let's explore another twist to the OP.
Joe citizen is stopped for failure to signal. Joe is warned of his failure or given a ticket and goes about life.

If you can't tell the difference you have worn a badge for the state for too long.

It's pretty simple. Unless you are a hammer.

Don't get all bent and call me a LEO hater. I have the personal cell numbers for the local chief of police and count many of the officers as personal friends. I know their wives and children.
 

Culpeper

One divided by F
Nov 25, 2006
2,045
569
113
59
Roswell NM
#75
He pulled you over because you didn't indicate your turn. That is just enough for him to pull you over. Everything else he did was legal including not initiating a warrantless search and he never asked to search your vehicle, which sounds like to me you would have gladly allowed. The only problem I see is you kept making statements.
 
Likes: Dthomas3523

RedRyder

Full Member
Feb 22, 2013
295
39
28
Pittsburgh, PA
#76
"The officer would have just continued with the investigation, but it would have taken longer. He would have dug deeper because that type of reaction typically signals that A) you hate the police, because B) you are a frequent flyer.

It would also depend on the attitude that went with it. The officer can tell fairly easily by the reaction they get what the deal is. Policing is observing and reading people all day, everyday."

So, if cops are such skillful readers of people why is it that they can't discern when somebody is just an ordinary guy who made a mistake and not some big time hardcore criminal? You can't have it both ways.

That's right, dig dig dig. Make a mountain out of a molehill just so everything fits the paperwork. Sounds like the democrats.

Is it a crime to dislike the police? Last time I checked it wasn't. I respect cops. I know they have a very difficult job. I say "Yes sir" and "No sir" when addressing the police (which I haven't had to do in a very long time) as much out of FEAR of them as out of respect for the law which they represent. IF I ever get pulled over again, I won't hate the cop because he's just doing his/her job. But do I like them? Not particularly.

Further, I think it's rather amusing that on a forum filled with individualists, that a healthy amount of distaste for authority would be considered surprising.
 
Last edited:
Sep 6, 2006
2,296
440
83
Southern California
#77
You are missing the point. It's not about"case law" and what the courts have decided are legal tactics to strong arm a citizen.
It's about being a free citizen and an officer of the state taking advantage of their powers to subjugate.
Example is the OP. Let's explore another twist to the OP.
Joe citizen is stopped for failure to signal. Joe is warned of his failure or given a ticket and goes about life.

If you can't tell the difference you have worn a badge for the state for too long.

It's pretty simple. Unless you are a hammer.

Don't get all bent and call me a LEO hater. I have the personal cell numbers for the local chief of police and count many of the officers as personal friends. I know their wives and children.

That’s exactly what happened here. Along the way, he saw something that warranted further investigation. Any number of other indications could have led him down an different investigatory path. Maybe a partially visible handgun, a possible controlled substance, an odd blood smear. We investigate, plain and simple. This is the part you’re not understanding. As Skookum pointed out, it’s called reasonable suspicion. There’s nothing that says because the probable cause is a traffic violation, I should shut my eyes and not ask questions.
 

mcameron

Sergeant of the Hide
Nov 17, 2011
2,847
3,353
113
#78
So, if cops are such skillful readers of people why is it that they can't discern when somebody is just an ordinary guy and not some big time criminal? That's right, dig dig dig. Make a mountain out of a molehill. Sounds like the democrats.
1) go fuck yourself with that line of thinking....

2) the cops did nothing wrong here.

i am probably one of the first people to speak up when cops get out of line and harass citizens for not doing anything wrong.......however, the fact is, OP committed an infraction that gave the police cause to pull him over.

upon pulling him over....they see a man with 2 much younger women late at night......thats out of the ordinary.....and potential sex trafficking...... and the officer saw it fit to investigate.....the officer didnt make a mountain out of anything, he asked a few questions and sent him on his way, OP got home with just a ticket he deserved, and everyone was fine.


now if OP was just minding his business, didnt commit a motoring infraction, and the cops pulled him over anyways.....then yes, you would have my sympathies......but thats not the case.
 

Skookum

Flattus Domini
May 6, 2017
722
614
93
Your mom's
#79
[QUOTE="RedRyder, post: 7005845, member: 79619"

So, if cops are such skillful readers of people why is it that they can't discern when somebody is just an ordinary guy who made a mistake and not some big time hardcore criminal? You can't have it both ways.
[/QUOTE]


Some officers are more skillful than others, but it generally doesn't take but a year or two, maybe less before you've heard every conceivable lie at least once. The real shit bags can be spotted from a mile away.

In fact, sometimes hearing the same lie you've heard a million times IS the reason you start digging. When you ask the person driving who the person sitting next to them in the car is, and they say, "A friend", the next question is, "What is your friends name?" If the answer is anything other than a proper name that rolled off the tongue, then some digging needs to be done. Next question, "How do you know each other?" If the answer is anything other than a semi-detailed personalized story of how you know each other, then the digging gets deeper.

Do you see how this works? Do this 4 or 5 times a day for about a decade or more and you are a bonafide fucking lie detector. It isn't rocket science, but the problem with dumbasses, is they think the whole world is as dumb as they are.

Second part of your statement has to do with officer discretion. Just because a person has no criminal history doesn't mean they automatically are entittled to a break.
 
Mar 18, 2012
459
164
43
53
East TN
#80
More of the Fucking hammer mentality.
Who's this riding with you? None of your business. It's not a Fucking crime to have a passenger in your vehicle.
All this bull shit of it could be sex trafficking and/or some other stupid shit is just Gestapo for I am an agent of the state and the courts have given me the power to detain you until my Spider-Man senses say that you are free to go about being a free citizen again. At least until another blue brother FEELS you MAY be doing something wrong.
I have no problem if you feel that my not using a turn signal warrants a tax. Fine do your duty to the state and give me the tax paperwork. That's where it should end. Something obvious like smells like alcohol, gun in plain sight or something stupid. Fine do your duty.
Where you going, where were you, whose this with you, can I search your vehicle, do you have any thing I should know about? Is all bull shit.
 
Likes: gigamortis

Culpeper

One divided by F
Nov 25, 2006
2,045
569
113
59
Roswell NM
#81
Yep, the one and only mistake here was failing a turn indicator. Oh, and making statements to an officer conducting an investigation. The OP even said himself he was leaving a bar at midnight and picking up female pedestrians with zero traffic around. What a recipe for getting pulled over. He got cited for a seat belt violation. Listen, you never know if you have broken a law or not when you get pulled over. This could have went south real quick if either one of those girls were carrying something illegal and hid it in the vehicle and the OP consented to a search of his vehicle. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He doesn't make statements and doesn't consent to search and the cop feels he still does not have enough probably cause for a warrantless search. So, they get a K9 that alerts and now they don't need a warrant and the girls don't cop to the shit. Guess who is going to jail? People need to take responsibility for their own actions when they get pulled over by the police. People do the stupidest shit then complain about it. Makes no fucking sense. The reality is it is a privilege and not a right to drive on public roadways. So, fuck a bunch of copies of the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Feb 14, 2017
793
90
28
AR
#82
You fellers are getting your dander up. Remember "This is the internet". Just an observation here, back in my younger days I got pulled over a lot! Mainly for driving like a maniac, now I haven't been pulled over in probably 20 years, but I've never been handcuffed, or asked to get in the back of the cop car.
 
Sep 13, 2011
25
8
3
35
#85
It all depends on the cops attitude as far as I'm concerned. It does make it harder for everyone when citizens don't exercise their rights occasionally. Refuse to answer their stupid "where you headed tonight" question , and they just melt down. Refuse to give them identification when they clearly have no probable cause or reasonable suspicion? Yup, they throw a fit like a toddler, then just kinda stand there wondering what to do next.

I don't hate cops, I hate cops that don't want to honor my rights.
 
Mar 18, 2012
459
164
43
53
East TN
#88
The only mistake the OP made was not using a turn signal. Deputy dog is traveling in the opposite direction. The only thing he knows is that Joe has failed to use a turn signal. Granted because of his job he knows he should check Joe out for DUI. It's close to midnight and in the area of a sports bar. He walks up to the driver and within seconds he knows whether there is an alcohol incident or not. From the OP we know there was no suspicion of alcohol because he didn't get to play circus games or blow into a machine. At this point in time Joe should get a verbal warning about his signal use or a written ticket. BUT that is not the norm when you are Deputy Dog. Your nose is still sniffing for a crime. The questioning now begins. Where are you going? Who is this with you? Where are you coming from? Do you have anything in the vehicle I should know about? Joe Citizen answers the questions and Deputy Dog slings out the big one. Can I search you vehicle? WTF this because I forgot to use a turn signal? I am a drug smuggler? Holy friggen cow. Maybe there's a chopped up body in the trunk!!! Sex Trafficking yeah that's it....Give me a break. No it's Joe Citizen going about normal life.
Like I said. I know you guys deal with the dredges and scum all the time. But when you start going around as a hammer looking at everything as a nail. You need to get some help. Just because the courts have made Gestapo tactics legal doesn't mean they should be used on everyone you encounter.
 
Mar 18, 2012
459
164
43
53
East TN
#89
That’s exactly what happened here. Along the way, he saw something that warranted further investigation. Any number of other indications could have led him down an different investigatory path. Maybe a partially visible handgun, a possible controlled substance, an odd blood smear. We investigate, plain and simple. This is the part you’re not understanding. As Skookum pointed out, it’s called reasonable suspicion. There’s nothing that says because the probable cause is a traffic violation, I should shut my eyes and not ask questions.
"We investigate, plain and simple. This is the part you're not understanding." <-------NO, I fully understand. A hammer looking for a nail. Police state?
"He saw something that needed further investigation." <-----UMMM 3 people riding down the road?
"Nothing says because the probable cause is a traffic violation, I should shut my eyes and not ask questions." <------Deputy Dog has his nose to the ground sure to make a criminal stop? Sniff Sniff Sniff Sniff I know it's here Sniff Sniff Sniff
You need some help. You admit to using a minor traffic violation to investigate Joe Citizen? Good Grief. Check that with your constitutional beliefs.
 
#90
Because? Freedom of choice? I don't have one on my motorcycle but it's mandatory in my 7,000 lb truck?
I use to think the same way, but made the choice to wear one all the time. On 5/29/11 it paid off big time. I was hit it the R/rear while traveling at 60mph on a rainy interstate. The small pickup that hit me was guessed at 90-95mph rolled my Bronco 3-5 times I recall 3 but was out for a few seconds. When I came to I was upside down sliding in the median praying I would not come up in the opposing lanes. Most all the glass was gone an everything that was inside was thrown out, all over the highway an median. I was coming home from a HardRock match an had 4 guns an other shit in the truck. The rolling was so wild it threw off a Serpa holster I was wearing with a G-23 in it. Wear the belt!!!!!
 
Last edited:

Culpeper

One divided by F
Nov 25, 2006
2,045
569
113
59
Roswell NM
#91
The fact that some morons are debating seatbelt laws is stupid. Don't use a seatbelt. You have a "right" to believe in anything you like but acting on certain beliefs can have consequences. We're not living in a deep state. Otherwise I know at least one Jarhead that would be on his way to a Gulag.
 
Last edited:

mcameron

Sergeant of the Hide
Nov 17, 2011
2,847
3,353
113
#93
Why wouldnt you wear a seatbelt?

Thats my only question.
theyre the same people that dont wear a helmet on a motorcycle......they think being a "badass" will protect them when they are plowed into by a 2 ton vehicle.

god i really cant believe this thread has gone one as long as it has......

because its really nothing more than OP being a pussy and bitching and moaning because he got a ticket.......sack the fuck up.

you picked up 2 young girls on the side of the road late at night, and you didnt know their names.......and you are bitching because the cops had the audacity to think you were a john?.......jesus christ did you eat paint chips as a kid?

dont break the law next time if you dont want your dumb ass to get pulled over, how about that?
 
Likes: Culpeper
Sep 7, 2011
1,184
774
113
38
Golden CO
#94
Why wear a seatbelt? It saves lives.
For every 1 story where someone lives because of not wearing ine, there are thousands, just and GF above, who live because of it.
It is a choice. I am a huge fan of freedom of choice. And a bigger fan of making educated choices based on facts.
 

sirhrmechanic

Command Sgt. Major
Feb 23, 2010
10,423
10,928
113
53
The Snobbiest Town in The Snobbiest State in the N
#95
What do Wayne Williams, Bruce Davis, Larry Eyler, James Swann, David Berkowitz, Joel Rifkin, Tim McVeigh, Randy Kraft, William Lester Suff and Ted Bundy have in common?

None were caught by task forces, detectives, giant invasive apparatus, wiretaps, video surveillance, deep state mind-reading... they were caught when they committed minor traffic violations.

Randy Kraft, the California Strangler, BTW loved picking up young Marines, torturing them raping and strangling them. When CHP pulled him over for suspected DUI, the police found the shrouded body of Terry Lee Gambrel, an active-duty Marine from El Toro Marine Air Station, in the passenger seat...

One of America's lesser known scumbag serial killers... convicted of 16 murders, it is believed that he may have killed as many as 61. Stopped for an illegal lane change. Wonder if that saved any Marines?

Sirhr
 

W54/XM-388

Online Training Member
Oct 1, 2005
2,469
2,057
113
Dallas, TX
#97
Last time I was in an accident (somebody ran a really red light and broadsided me), the seat belt left me with bruised ribs for about 2 months worth of pain. I'm not sure how much forces were involved, as it was over before I could fully appreciate what just happened to me, but I'm guessing no seat belt would probably have meant something much worse for my head and neck.

I wear seat belts pretty religiously.
 

308220

Karma Enforcer
Jul 19, 2014
299
65
28
#98
1. I was wearing my seatbelt.
2. Neither of my passengers was wearing a seatbelt. 2 seater. Thats why I was ticketed. Dont know why my older friend didnt get a ticket? Oh well.
3. How did the cop know my 26 yr old friend wasnt my gf/wife? We ARENT strangers.
4. What is wrong with giving a friend a ride?
5. Why does it matter what time of day/night a person travels?


He never asked me how I knew them until I was in the cruiser. He was fishing and caught nothing.
 

mcameron

Sergeant of the Hide
Nov 17, 2011
2,847
3,353
113
#99
1. I was wearing my seatbelt.
2. Neither of my passengers was wearing a seatbelt. 2 seater. Thats why I was ticketed. Dont know why my older friend didnt get a ticket? Oh well.
3. How did the cop know my 26 yr old friend wasnt my gf/wife? We ARENT strangers.
4. What is wrong with giving a friend a ride?
5. Why does it matter what time of day/night a person travels?


He never asked me how I knew them until I was in the cruiser. He was fishing and caught nothing.
Holy shit dude.... you know you’re not actually supposed to eat the tide pods right?
 

j-huskey

Jafo / Instigator !
Jul 27, 2001
1,154
1,354
113
AL
None
Better to get pulled over than to have to pull out when he shined the light in your eyes..... especially if it had been the 17 yo.. that would really have pissed off roy moore.... (All in fun here, no offense meant).
 
Top Bottom