reply to post by HomerinNC
I believe you are correct, they will find a reason to interfere in your life even if they KNOW that no revenue will come from this issue.
Over the past two years I've been cited into court by officers on two occasions for actions that I did not take.
In the first instance I met the same woman cop on the video---except the one I met was nearly as wide as she was tall---but the attitude was there.
The action I had failed to take was to buckle my seat belt.
The seat belt statute in Kentucky specifically and clearly exempts any vehicle manufactured before 1981. My car is an earlier model. In the past
when these eager-beaver LEOs have pulled us over a simple recitation of the statue has done the trick. Not with this chick! By the time I explained
to her that she had no probable cause to pull over a vehicle manufactured after 1981, her hand was on the grip of her pistol. I honestly believe she
would have pulled it and shot me despite the fact that at no time did I raise my voice nor was I rude in any way. I asked her, "Do you really want
to write a ticket that you know is just going to get thrown out and make you look ignorant of the law?" Her response, "Look, the Federal government
told us to enforce the seat belt laws and I'm just doing my job for the Federal government."
I went to court, charges dismissed but not before I made my complaint to the judge, that the cop writing the ticket willfully, in full knowledge of
what she was doing, clogged up his court, paid for by taxpayers, with a case that she knew full well would be dismissed.
I left the court and lodged a complaint against the cop with her boss. Perhaps a lot of other people she had abused were in that court that day.
Perhaps they lodged complaints as well. I'm pretty sure she didn't pick on just grannies driving old cars. Perhaps the judge had a word with her
boss if others had complained. Whatever, the present situation is that she is no longer on patrol, no longer out there getting in faces and wasting
public time and private money.
The second encounter was with a trooper I've decided to call Roid Roger. The action I had failed to take was to notice that the bulb above my plate
was burned out and that my plate had expired 11 days earlier (but according to statute I had another 20 days in the grace period to affix the new
sticker). Roid Roger strode up to the vehicle, shined his flashlight directly into my eyes and demanded my license. Since I had absolutely no idea,
no clue as to why he'd lit me up, I asked him why he wanted to see my license. That's when I saw exactly what Alex Jones has been portraying on his
show---the bulged eyes, the hissing, the whole bit that juveniles use to intimidate others.
Now I'm a 115# Granny, just a little bit of a thing beside this hulk but I've seen a lot of this behavior and it just doesn't work to intimidate
me. When he announced that he was going to search my vehicle I told him no. This brought on another fit of pique, stomping, hissing in my face and
demanding to know why I was being uncooperative. I told him in a quiet, controlled voice that if he wished to search my vehicle he would need to call
a judge and give the judge his probable cause for such a violation of my privacy. I asked him to please write up my violation and let me go on my
way. Under the comments section of the violation was written: "Subject was angry, used a raised voice and uncooperative."
Again, I appeared in court, had all charges dismissed and lodged my complaint against the trooper with the judge. I explained to the judge that the
loud voice was the result of being on the side of a busy highway with vehicles whizzing by. I raised my voice to make the officer understand that I
was not consenting to a search of my vehicle. That stopped the judge in mid-motion----"This officer wanted to search your vehicle for having a
burned out light and almost expired plates?" It's nice to have a judge who has read and defended the constitution.
Again I was directed to complaint to the boss of the offender. I did. His commander sent me a letter saying essentially that he has instructed that
rookie trooper to be nicer to folks.
I think that's what the young man hassled in the video should do. Protest his uncivil treatment in a civil manner. So what if he's a punk? We've
all been guilty of that at some I'd venture to say but it never came with a court appearance/threat of jail. A professional is required to treat
punks with respect. The problem, as I see it, is that somewhere along the way certain members of the LEO community began to see us as "Subject...."
and as in another thread here on ATS, I've never been happy with being called a "subject" of anyone. I'm a citizen who has realized that if I
want to retain whatever few rights I have left, I must stand up and speak for them at every opportunity.