Current Events > Cops when you ask why you are pulled over before giving your id

(+) Yeah! (+)

DipDipDiver posted...

I didn't say the stop was unjustified.

SwayM posted...

I dont believe in police pulling people over for no reason and not explaining why.

Changing your tune all the sudden? wonder why

DipDipDiver posted...

You said the man's life was ruined. Was it? pLeAsE tElL uS

Having the door of his car ripped open and the window smashed and then taken to jail.

He WiLl bE fInE!!!!
poor officers though who had their authority challenged will need lifelong therapy!!

lilORANG posted...

Because tags may be valid but the license may be suspended. Tags are specific to a vehicle. A license is specific to a person. They are different things.

so basically we 100% know cop was just fishing for something when his excuse was maybe maybe your license is suspended but let me see it cause I don't know that!

disgusting

lilORANG posted...

Because tags may be valid but the license may be suspended. Tags are specific to a vehicle. A license is specific to a person. They are different things.

Bro we know this. You said he could have ran the tag and it could have pulled up a license that is suspended. If the tag links to the license no need to debate semantics.

Regardless the cop could have simply informed him your license is suspended or tags are expired and proceeded from there.

WingsOfGood posted...

so basically we 100% know cop was just fishing for something when his excuse was maybe maybe your license is suspended but let me see it cause I don't know that!

disgusting

I mean...maybe. but the Supreme Court has said its reasonable for a cop to assume the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving it, so under the law the stop was technically justified, if my theory about running the plate is correct.

Which of course doesn't excuse his behavior after the stop.

WingsOfGood posted...

DipDipDiver posted...
I didn't say the stop was unjustified.

SwayM posted...
I dont believe in police pulling people over for no reason and not explaining why.

Changing your tune all the sudden? wonder why

dot dot dot

You realize those posts are not both by me, right?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I dont believe in police pulling people over for no reason and not explaining why.

If you don't believe in something, you don't justify when said thing happens.

This is like saying "I believe women should have the right to choose but seeing as how THE LAW says they do not, I believe it is JUSTIFIED to throw women seeking abortions in jail!"

that doesn't work

MrDrMan posted...

Bro we know this. You said he could have ran the tag and it could have pulled up a license that is suspended. If the tag links to the license no need to debate semantics.

Regardless the cop could have simply informed him your license is suspended or tags are expired and proceeded from there.

You clearly do not know this because it would be factually incorrect to say the tags were expired if only the license was suspended. They are 2 different violations. You need valid tags and a valid license. You can have one without the other.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

He doesn't care, he just wants to argue

DipDipDiver posted...

dot dot dot

You realize those posts are not both by me, right?

I did not.
That actually makes it worse. I thought you had a momentary bout of compassion but apparently that was SwayM not you.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Oh?

Explain how you justify something you don't believe in then. Give me a better analogy.

MrDrMan posted...

No it is not. As TC already said if the stop is wrong then you can not ask for ID. There must be reasonable suspicion of a crime.

You don't understand how the law is applied. It is illegal to resist an unlawful arrest. Even if you 100% know the arrest is unlawful. You are supposed to, ideally, just get arrested unlawfully, and then take up your grievance later with the court. Except you can't because of qualified immunity.

The exact same double standard applies to cops asking for your id at a traffic stop. And the moment you begin arguing with the cop he will just go "he was so reluctant I suspected he had something to hide" and you will lose every single fight in court over this because of qualified immunity.

It literally doesn't matter what's legal or not when it comes to cops. There's a severely lopsided double standard and it is not in your favor. If you get pulled over and asked for your ID, you show them the fucking id and don't answer any questions.

WingsOfGood posted...

I did not.
That actually makes it worse. I thought you had a momentary bout of compassion but apparently that was SwayM not you.

Honestly I think it's time for you to step away from the internet before the rest of your brain rots away

you want to defend this cop so much you now flame me?

lilORANG posted...

You clearly do not know this because it would be factually incorrect to say the tags were expired if only the license was suspended. They are 2 different violations. You need valid tags and a valid license. You can have one without the other.

Youre focusing on a very insignificant detail to distract from the fact you have no point. I register my car every years and have for the past 10 years. I know what damn tags are.

YOU straight up said the tags could have told him the license was suspended. When I said suspended tags I assumed youd know I meant the tag leading to the suspended license.

Now you say you can have expired tags or a suspended license. Ok yeah but thats not what you said so why are you bringing it up? Its irrelevant.

WingsOfGood posted...

you want to defend this cop so much you now flame me?

You aren't even making coherent arguments, you're just making a fool of yourself at this point

Tyranthraxus posted...

You don't understand how the law is applied. It is illegal to resist an unlawful arrest. Even if you 100% know the arrest is unlawful. You are supposed to, ideally, just get arrested unlawfully, and then take up your grievance later with the court. Except you can't because of qualified immunity.

The exact same double standard applies to cops asking for your id at a traffic stop. And the moment you begin arguing with the cop he will just go "he was so reluctant I suspected he had something to hide" and you will lose every single fight in court over this because of qualified immunity.

It literally doesn't matter what's legal or not when it comes to cops. There's a severely lopsided double standard and it is not in your favor. If you get pulled over and asked for your ID, you show them the fucking id and don't answer any questions.

False. Resisting arrest can not be a stand alone charge. Really depends on the judge but this kind of shit gets thrown out all the time. Guy in this videos case probably got thrown out. Im not saying you cant be convicted of solely resisting arrest but any competent judge will throw that out.

I dont agree with the just comply bullshit. No.

MrDrMan posted...

Youre focusing on a very insignificant detail to distract from the fact you have no point. I register my car every years and have for the past 10 years. I know what damn tags are.

YOU straight up said the tags could have told him the license was suspended. When I said suspended tags I assumed youd know I meant the tag leading to the suspended license.

Now you say you can have expired tags or a suspended license. Ok yeah but thats not what you said so why are you bringing it up? Its irrelevant.

Are you ok my good sir? Please go back and read your posts carefully to see how we got here.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



Why do people continue to not understand what analogies are?

An analogy is taking a principle and applying it. It is NOT finding an equivalent scenario.

the principle: "you can believe something is wrong but say it is justified because THE LAW!"

this is what we are applying. we are applying it to test your hypothesis that you can believe something is wrong but justify it still.
if that is true, it would work in extreme scenarios
we are not finding and equivalent scenario to a traffic stop because that would not adequately test your hypothesis

the scenario: you believe women have the right to choose. the law says they do not and go to jail.

application: you believe they have the right to choose but the LAW therefore justifies throwing them into prison

what does this analogy show us? It shows us that your statement is bullshit and incorrect:

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



Now

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



Umm...
No you are justifying it if you say that anyone who complains that this happens should shut up and just accept that it is the law.
Do you do that?

MrDrMan posted...

False. Resisting arrest can not be a stand alone charge. Really depends on the judge but this kind of shit gets thrown out all the time. Guy in this videos case probably got thrown out. Im not saying you cant be convicted of solely resisting arrest but any competent judge will throw that out.

I dont agree with the just comply bullshit. No.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/29/382497080/arrested-for-resisting-arrest-yes-its-possible

There are literally people who have been arrested for resisting arrest. It's irrelevant. The point of doing it isn't to actually look for crimes. It's to harass you by throwing you in jail for 48 hours, getting your car towed, making you pay to get your own car back, having your shit stolen legally through civil forfeiture in the process, and then you lose your job because you were a no show for 2 days.

That's the purpose of this. The cop doesn't actually give a fuck if your license is suspended.

And you saying shit about competent judges is a fucking joke as if the judges aren't literally in league with the cops.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


That is not how analogies work.

If you find that it doesn't work then it proves your statement was false

that is the whole purpose of an anology

when principle is applied elsewhere and you find it doesn't hold up, the analogy did the job showing the bullshit of the principle

lilORANG posted...

Are you ok my good sir? Please go back and read your posts carefully to see how we got here.

The irony.

lilORANG posted...

1. Cop waaaay overreacted, should have just told the dude why he pulled him over, and shouldn't have smashed his window for a minor traffic offense

2. When he said "your license is probably suspended" I doubt he was just speculating. I'm guessing he ran the vehicle's plate, and its was registered to someone whose license was suspended and matched the general description of the driver. Hence why he needed an ID to confirm if the driver was the registered owner and was in fact suspended.

This is what you posted. Stop with the bullshit.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


dude, that is what you had argued with

if you agreed then why did you claim someone can justify a law they disagreed with?
re-read post 51

my mistake though was it was 2 different users

Tyranthraxus posted...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/29/382497080/arrested-for-resisting-arrest-yes-its-possible

There are literally people who have been arrested for resisting arrest. It's irrelevant. The point of doing it isn't to actually look for crimes. It's to harass you by throwing you in jail for 48 hours, getting your car towed, making you pay to get your own car back, having your shit stolen legally through civil forfeiture in the process, and then you lose your job because you were a no show for 2 days.

That's the purpose of this. The cop doesn't actually give a fuck if your license is suspended.

And you saying shit about competent judges is a fucking joke as if the judges aren't literally in league with the cops.

All cops dont do this shit and all judges arent assholes. The majority are bad but some arent out to get you.

I had a warrant once and a cop let me drive to the station to avoid the tow. Also I got arrested for DUI once. Should have went to jail, they let me Uber home.

Those kind of cops are cool but there are also a lot of bad ones. Same for judges. Its not black and white.

MrDrMan posted...

This is what you posted. Stop with the bullshit.

Correct. And then you started talking about expired tags. And then I pointed out how that's not the same thing as a suspended license. And then we got here. Let's not do it again as we've now made a full circle.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


they have similarity

you disagree with the law, but it is the law

that is enough to test your principle

if you dislike the outcome, that is because your principle failed the test

there is no analogy that can be made where everything is similar

to suggest this is to say no analogy can ever work, which is poor logic

DipDipDiver posted...

Officer obviously went way overboard here but I don't understand why the driver was being so stubborn about handing over his license

Because you have every right to ask why youre being pulled over and the fucking pigs arent Gestapo in this country as of yet- Im sure the Republicans would love that though

WingsOfGood posted...

they have similarity

you disagree with the law, but it is the law

that is enough to test your principle

if you dislike the outcome, that is because your principle failed the test

there is no analogy that can be made where everything is similar

to suggest this is to say no analogy can ever work, which is poor logic

This is a straw man argument. Just because he disagrees with two different laws does not mean he must feel the resistance to those laws must be equal.

If you get pulled over, just cooperate. Literally nothing good can come of being combative or defiant.

What_ posted...

Because you have every right to ask why youre being pulled over

You have the right to ask, but he doesn't have to tell you until he issues a citation of some kind.

You also do not have the right to refuse to show ID while you're driving a car. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You MUST be a licensed driver in order to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Hence, at any time, an officer can request to see your license, at minimum to verify whether or not you are legally driving.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

If you get pulled over, just cooperate. Literally nothing good can come of being combative or defiant.

sir please take off your pants

what?

are you non-compliant?

ok, now spread your cheeks

WingsOfGood posted...

sir please take off your pants

what?

are you non-compliant?

ok, now spread your cheeks

Okay strawman

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Okay strawman

is it a strawman?

then tell me when you can not comply?

in what circumstances?

or is it that you must always comply no matter what?

Tyranthraxus posted...

does not mean he must feel the resistance to those laws must be equal.

analogy isn't to test if these laws are equal

that is not how analogies work my friend

it is to test the principle of justifying a law that you don't believe in

if we take laws that are unequal (that is infact the point) and test the principle

what we find is that he is cherry picking the principle

and the analogy has done its job and the reason why analogies exist

WingsOfGood posted...

analogy isn't to test if these laws are equal

I didn't say the laws were equal.

WingsOfGood posted...

it is to test the principle of justifying a law that you don't believe in

if we take laws that are unequal (that is infact the point) and test the principle

what we find is that he is cherry picking the principle

You have not explained why cherry picking is an invalid stance to hold when it comes to resisting laws you disagree with.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

If you get pulled over, just cooperate. Literally nothing good can come of being combative or defiant.

You have the right to ask, but he doesn't have to tell you until he issues a citation of some kind.

You also do not have the right to refuse to show ID while you're driving a car. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You MUST be a licensed driver in order to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Hence, at any time, an officer can request to see your license, at minimum to verify whether or not you are legally driving.

False. Officers cant just stop to check ID whenever they want. There has to be suspicion of a violation. Whats up with people spreading false information?

What_ posted...

Because you have every right to ask why youre being pulled over and the fucking pigs arent Gestapo in this country as of yet- Im sure the Republicans would love that though

There certainly are no laws against asking

Tyranthraxus posted...

You have not explained why cherry picking is an invalid stance to hold when it comes to resisting laws you disagree with.

I didn't have to. The user who provided the principle felt that they could not apply the principle to abortion.
Why?
Because it spoke for itself.

He only wants to apply the principle to certain laws he feels he or his friends can easily comply with. But yet the principle was still given universally.

The thing is there is more scenarios that we can apply and find the same conclusion. That you do not comply just because they are laws.

Therefore we find the principle is useless and using it to say "hey we can use it for this 1 or 2 laws" is dumb thing to say. Not only that, but even doing it for those 1 or 2 laws does not work for many people.

WingsOfGood posted...

He only wants to apply the principle to certain laws he feels he or his friends can easily comply with.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

WingsOfGood posted...

The thing is there is more scenarios that we can apply and find the same conclusion. That you do not comply just because they are laws.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this either.

WingsOfGood posted...

Therefore we find the principle is useless and using it to say "hey we can use it for this 1 or 2 laws" is dumb thing to say. Not only that, but even doing it for those 1 or 2 laws does not work for many people.

Why is it a dumb thing to say? Why must principles be applicable universally in equal intensity regardless of circumstances?

WingsOfGood posted...

then tell me when you can not comply?

You must comply with any lawful order. If it's not a lawful order, then we'll talk.

MrDrMan posted...

False. Resisting arrest can not be a stand alone charge. Really depends on the judge but this kind of shit gets thrown out all the time. Guy in this videos case probably got thrown out. Im not saying you cant be convicted of solely resisting arrest but any competent judge will throw that out.

I dont agree with the just comply bullshit. No.

Even the ACLU's website says if a cop asks for ID when they pull you over you have to comply and they don't need to tell you why they pulled you over. They only have to tell the judge who will always believe them.

lilORANG posted...

I mean...maybe. but the Supreme Court has said its reasonable for a cop to assume the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving it, so under the law the stop was technically justified, if my theory about running the plate is correct.

Which of course doesn't excuse his behavior after the stop.

Just wanted to say that your theory about running the plate is incorrect. Running the plate just pulls up the vehicle registration information. The registration does not include the driver's license status of the registered owner, because you don't need a license to register a car in your name. All it gives is a name and address of the owner / lienholder.

So the officer wasn't basing that statement on any actual evidence. He was fishing.