It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A.) Yes, I think seatbelt laws are stupid, for adults but that makes no difference in this case it is only incidental to the real problem.
B.) Should they have been arrested, probably. The driver was being argumentative and didn't follow instructions she agreed to abide by when receiving a liscense to drive. A privilege.
C.) Passengers are not subject to do anything in a stop such as this unless the officers make a observation during their process which presents probable cause.
D.) There were kids in the car. Hypocratic oath comes to mind, watch the video again closely, this time with your eyes open. The officer swung his tool in a manner that the trajectory of the broken glass was aimed torward the backseats. He didn't warn the children beforehand and took a nonchalant attitude doing it. These highly 'trained' men acted no better then the idiot parents they pulled over. If your reasoning is stupid begets stupid then you are spot on. And are getting very warm as to why I'm so aggrevated by such incidents.
E.) Fear mongering - seriously, are you going to say I'm a sympathizer next?
So what we have here are many posters calling for street violence, resistance to police, and encouraging fear of the police, based on little or nothing. Sensationalizing the trivial, means the important cases get treated as just one more occurrence.
F.) These situations need to be addressed and held to a higher standard. This is the USA not some 3rd world desert location. Until some form of accountability other then 'Oops, if your unsatisfied with our service please hire a lawyer and take it to a judge' happens, things are going to get worse. Meanwhile the system is set up in a way that those the enforce the law know most about how to circumvent it.
E.) I don't want to give away so easily my reasons for disliking the actions police have been accused of making in the past few months. You seem to know the answers already though. So, I am a single, 30 something, white, attractive(so I've been told), professional with my own business, house and 2 kids. I drive an Audi A4, wear a seatbelt and drive as carefully as a surgeon since most times I have kids in the car.
The reason I bring this up is at times there are laws on the books that began to be misused, even though technically they are correct and legal.
One is where subsequent legislation changes or amends specific portions of the law.
A second is where subsequent legislation repeals only specific portions of a law.
A third is where subsequent legislation repeals an entire law and replaces it with a new version of the law.
A fourth method is where a court declares part of a law unconstitutional and renders that portion void but leaves the rest in place.
The first three above follow the normal legislative process. There are two other methods for changing laws by direct participation of the citizens.
One is called INITIATIVE. Here, citizens themselves prepare the legislation and upon a proper petition, place the proposed legislation on the ballot for approval by the voters in the same way that candidates for office are elected.
The other is called REFERENDUM. One form of REFERENDUM is where citizens by petition call on the legislature to do some specific act such as review or repeal a specific law. If passed, the normal legislative process begins. Another, more common form is where the Legislature proposes a law for the direct approval of the citizens by their vote rather than by the legislature's vote.
Initiative and Referendum are often associated with another citizen based action called RECALL, in which citizens can petition for the removal of an elected official.
These three citizen-based methods are not permitted in every jurisdiction.
C.) Passengers are not subject to do anything in a stop such as this unless the officers make a observation during their process which presents probable cause. This gets abused all the time by the way, due to the subjective nature of it relying solely on the discretion of the officer at the scene. Years ago here in NJ police used to lay in wait at toll booths to grab unsuspecting violators of seatbelt laws and use it as probable cause to look for other things wrong. It was overturned and all tickets were thrown out by the courts, including the DWI's they got in the process, insufficient PC and entrapment in some cases.
You may be right that they swung in the wrong direction. The result, at any rate, was no injury to the children.
I still think that many posters in the thread were (are?) fear mongering. By ignoring the law and the fact that they don't know what happened, those posters are encouraging fear. (I would have said OP if I had meant you specifically.
"There was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an infraction or ordinance violation, giving rise to an obligation to identify himself upon threat of criminal prosecution."
Indiana has a Stop and Identify statute. Once there was an infraction, the police have every right to ask for an ID and arrest you if you don't provide it.
originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: sheepslayer247
Quit being so modest. But, if you don't like the spotlight, I'll turn it off.
As far as calling out people and policemen who are acting like jerks, I think I agree with you. In my post just above, I said that a bad policeman can be an extremely dangerous threat to his society, and could probably be dealt with even more harshly than a citizen. I don't see any disagreement.
Except maybe for one small point. Are we calling out people and policemen for being jerks, or for breaking the law? If it's breaking the law, then I'm fine. But Hoky Smokes, Bullwinkle, I would wager that most of the people think I'm a jerk, and you know what a sweetie I am.
Go after jerky bosses, counter staff, telephone hotline operators, pizza delivery men, just about any government employee? Let's start with the law breakers, OK?
originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: compressedFusion
He was wearing a seatbelt. He had no ID to show as he had his license revoked due to insurance. He attempted to show them the ticket as ID, it wasn't sufficient to them. I can't really blame him for being reluctant to get out of the car at that point...they were looking to escalate because they did exactly that at every turn. They even tased him again, once out of the car, surrounded by multiple officers and it was evident at that point that he had no weapon.
originally posted by: jimmyx
I still don't know why the LEO didn't just give the woman driver an infraction ticket for not wearing her seatbelt, and get back in his car and leave. oh yeah, they were black and loud...therefore, they must be taught a lesson.