LOL cops

[DRiccio21]

i'm not concerned with other people. i'm concerned with you cause i know you're a logical and intelligent person and you've asked the same question 8 times and i/we have replied to it 8 times.

its a gray area that cops get to walk. technically its legal, but the intent is not. but there is no way to determine intent so they can always get away with it.

[shel311]

i'm not concerned with other people. i'm concerned with you cause i know you're a logical and intelligent person and you've asked the same question 8 times and i/we have replied to it 8 times.

its a gray area that cops get to walk. technically its legal, but the intent is not. but there is no way to determine intent so they can always get away with it.

I was interested in whether the cop did admit to breaking laws or not in that specific quote. I'm not sure how much gray area is in that specific quote.

Either he did admit it and Trendon is right. Or he did not and Trendon just made an unfair logic leap based on that specific quote, and nothing more. Is that such a crazy and illogical thought process?

Again, i know some cops overstep their boundaries a lot, but that's not the issue here, everyone knows that.

[autiger730]

"Robert Veach, president of the Connecticut State Police Union, which represents more than 1,100 state troopers, said the stickers provide police with a reason to check for everything from lapsed insurance to stolen plates, and they've led to arrests of drivers on more serious charges."

Nothing different from what they check in any other traffic stop. People get arrested on more serious charges in normal traffic stops all the time. I stand by what I said, they are not using the stickers as a reason to search your vehicle nor are they admitting to doing that.

course like a good debater, Autiger doesnt highlight a key point


1st part - there goes your freedom. I have an expired plate might as well strip search me.

2nd highlight - what are these more serious charges? like searching the car and finding shit? Cause if its warrants, pretty sure the moment they find the expired license sticker, and put the # in the comp, warrants will pop up anyways.

This is my point, Trendon is stretching and twisting what the cop said into what he wants him to have said not what he really said. You want an example of a more serious charge? ok, guy gets pulled over for expired sticker. Cop goes to the window asks for his license, registration, and insurance, all the routine stuff they check at a traffic stop. Cop runs the plates and license. Guy has an outstanding warrant for some serious crime, assault with a deadly weapon, let's say. He is then arrested on a more serious charge than having expired registration. Does that violate the guys Fourth Amendment rights?

[DRiccio21]

no it absolutely doesn't and nobody (including trendon) is saying it does.

nor is he, or I, against that hypothetical you just explained. in fact (i'll speak for myself) that i'm all for that.

[shel311]

no it absolutely doesn't and nobody (including trendon) is saying it does.

nor is he, or I, against that hypothetical you just explained. in fact (i'll speak for myself) that i'm all for that.

But if the Guy's car looked suspicious that changes everything? Even though ALL of tge actions by the cop remained the same.

[autiger730]

no it absolutely doesn't and nobody (including trendon) is saying it does.

nor is he, or I, against that hypothetical you just explained. in fact (i'll speak for myself) that i'm all for that.

I realize that, that question was for nick.

I'm pretty sure everyone is against what Trendon is trying to make it appear the cop said (the stickers are a reason to pull you over AND search you) but, he didn't say that. Not even close.

[DRiccio21]

for shel

its the intent.

if the intent was 'hey this dude has an expired tag' than its all good. if the intent is 'i can pull this guy over for a bad tag and then use that to try to fuck him over on other more serious shit' then its completely different.

just like many things in life, its not the result that always matters, its the intent.

[brwnbear]

I am glad I missed most of this thread.

Seems like the cops objection was to keep the sticker so they could have a reason to look for more series crimes.

I am not an attorney but I am fairly confident that you cant stop someone for one offense, with the INTENT of looking for another. To me, the cops statements clearly show his intent is not to enforce the city sticker ordinance, but with the intent to look for more series crimes.

[OracleHCR]

for shel

its the intent.

if the intent was 'hey this dude has an expired tag' than its all good. if the intent is 'i can pull this guy over for a bad tag and then use that to try to fuck him over on other more serious shit' then its completely different.

just like many things in life, its not the result that always matters, its the intent.

I agree with what your saying but, the reverse for this can be true also. Sometimes the intent is good and bad shit happens because of it. So the result is what matters; not the intent. After all the saying is: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Some real bad people have been caught with routine traffic stops. Ted Bundy was pulled over for speeding just up the road from where I live. The cop didn't know he was an escaped convict, serial killer when he stopped him. I don't think they are looking to pull people over just to find something else to bust them on. I think they pull them over and one thing leads to another. At least that is what I'm reading. Like I said, I give the benefit of the doubt to the cop.
Then again you have this guy that was pummeled by the Pennsylvania state troopers that is suing the state for brutality. You do have bad eggs in all walks of life.

[DRiccio21]

well then we agree to disagree...

in my opinion, the intent is what matters. because if the intent is 'i'm gonna use this as a chance to fuck him over' than its unconstitutional... regardless of its its Ted Bundy or Joe Schmo.

i believe in a fair and due process. i'm not saying i want convicted felons walking around when they could be caught, but i think the other side of profiling and incriminating normal people is far more dangerous and why 4th ammendment exists. (or at least thats how i interpret it)

[OracleHCR]

I agree with you. But Im not reading in to what he is saying like you guys. I'm taking what he is saying at face value.

[jsence2]

or you're uninformed, at which point you should just keep your mouth shut and say nothing in the first place.

You mean like you shut your mouth on page 1 when you were uninformed? Hypocrite.

And Shel, you can't sit there and claim that you're right, and then claim ignorance of the argument when you have holes poked into your points.

You have such a hard on to try and prove me wrong, that you don't even bother to read my posts.

I never claimed I was right. If you read my posts, you'd know that.

Look at me, all claiming I was right and shit. You're so full of shit dude, get over it. You're making shit up to pretend you've proved me wrong. Like I said, it's pathetic, man.

Fine, but if that assertion is correct then Trendon is wrong by matter of factly saying they are admitting to breaking the law. It may be semantics, but what he said was not correct if this is true. Obviously breaking the law but not admitting it isn't any good, but I STILL don't see where they are admittedly breaking the law.

I'm pretty sure that's you claiming that Trendon is wrong, but of course once again you play the "semantics" card so you can avoid being "wrong". I don't care about proving you wrong dude, because there's no point--the mighty Shel is never wrong, we all get it. Just stop trying to play ignorant and play "semantics" every time you find yourself on the wrong side of an argument.

Oh, and I'm not "misinformed", I MISUNDERSTOOD Trendon's stance. I know my rights unlike you, I know them very well. I actually read things and educate myself, as do many others in here. Fact is, I was wrong--you're not uninformed, you're just lazy; we all learned what the 4th Amendment was in 4th grade Social Studies class, and again multiple times in high school. You're so lazy that you couldn't even read up and refresh on what the 4th Amendment is as an American citizen, you had to have it spoon-fed to you what it was, so I honestly don't give a damn what your view is on political or social matters.

[jsence2]

I am glad I missed most of this thread.

Seems like the cops objection was to keep the sticker so they could have a reason to look for more series crimes.

I am not an attorney but I am fairly confident that you cant stop someone for one offense, with the INTENT of looking for another. To me, the cops statements clearly show his intent is not to enforce the city sticker ordinance, but with the intent to look for more series crimes.

DING DING DING

Buy this man a beer!

[shel311]

I'm pretty sure that's you claiming that Trendon is wrong,

I'm pretty sure that you're flatly ignoring the first few words of mine that you quoted.

Keep trying though. Keep ignoring my posts and trying, keep up the good fight.

[jsence2]

So this is from page 2:

Shel has flat out mastered Tactic #4. He is the Michael Jordan/Wayne Gretzky of that tactic. There's no comparison.

Me attacking grammar errors, what are you talking about?


I think you got some bad info there.


Also, is there a number in that list for the King of Hyperbole? I know I've called you out for that a bunch of times, and this post you just made about sums it up, even as it's all kinds of wrong.

I swear if you took the ACT, you scored a 4 on the Reading Comprehension part.

"Super Tunnel Vision" means you ignore all the evidence that shot down 9 of your 10 points of your argument, and you focus on the ONE thing that you can continue to fight, no matter how absurd it is.

And you cannot dispute that, I (and many others) have pointed it out numerous times...and shockingly you ignore thsoe too

And then this is the reply to about 1/10th of what I just posted:

I'm pretty sure that's you claiming that Trendon is wrong,

I'm pretty sure that you're flatly ignoring the first few words of mine that you quoted.

Keep trying though. Keep ignoring my posts an trying, keep up the good fight.

YOUR HONOR, THE JURY RESTS!!!!!!

[shel311]

And then this is the reply to about 1/10th of what I just posted:

90% of what you posted wasn't addressing the issue, holy shit, you can't be that dumb. Why the fuck would I reply to your stupidity of your last few sentences. It's stupid. Why would I quote and reply to your whining about how I'm never wrong and how you're so much more educated than me. You don't know me dude, you're a fucking tool. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll see so many NDLers stop making fun of you. Coming in here and acting like you're so much smarter and eduated than someone you don't know is childish, and you want me to argue with you about THAT? yea, no thanks.

And the part you quoted and YOU ignored, "if that assertion is correct" is everything. You ignored it, and that completely proved you wrong. You can ignore that as well, but it did. You can't say I came in claiming Trendon was wrong when I say, "if that assertion is correct", again, be objective for once in your life.

[DRiccio21]

[BFiVL]

Shelly is angry. Watch out boards

[jsence2]

And then this is the reply to about 1/10th of what I just posted:

90% of what you posted wasn't addressing the issue, holy shit, you can't be that dumb. Why the fuck would I reply to your stupidity of your last few sentences. It's stupid. Why would I quote and reply to your whining about how I'm never wrong and how you're so much more educated than me. You don't know me dude, you're a fucking tool. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll see so many NDLers stop making fun of you. Coming in here and acting like you're so much smarter and eduated than someone you don't know is childish, and you want me to argue with you about THAT? yea, no thanks.

And the part you quoted and YOU ignored, "if that assertion is correct" is everything. You ignored it, and that completely proved you wrong. You can ignore that as well, but it did. You can't say I came in claiming Trendon was wrong when I say, "if that assertion is correct", again, be objective for once in your life.

1) You ignored the part where I showed that you DID form an opinion (and thus can no longer play the ignorance card) and thus either need to admit you're wrong or just shut up. This is like me debating a financial issue w Dave or Gabe, and then claiming ignorance the whole time--you formed an opinion and then pretended you hadn't. I called you on it, and you ignored it and focused on something else I said. Point proven, Argument Tactic #4.

2) You must think we're in 10th grade or something, where I care what people have to say about me behind my back. "Oh noez, someone is making fun of me!" Let them say it to my face or I don't care; and even then....oh yeah, I don't care. We're not in high school anymore kiddo.

3) You must not be too smart if you don't know the 4th Amendment, or you're just flat out lazy, I'll let you decide but I honestly don't care. And I'm not the only person in this thread to call you out for it. Maybe before you call someone a tool, you should know something (or at least take 30 seconds to look it up) that we all learned before we were ten years old.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" isn't just a cool phrase, it's what this nation is built upon. "Liberty" is protected by the 4th Amendment, it prevents illegal searches and seizures by the government without due process and probable cause. It's not to protect the guilty, it's to protect the innocent. You're so focused on "well, it allows them to catch the bad guys" that you're missing the point--this guy blatantly said it allows them to get around the need for warrants and probable cause, things they would need to legally search a "suspicious" vehicle. You use window tint, Shel--thus, you could be pulled over for being "suspicious" by a cop looking for a reason to pull you over. That is a blatant intent because they are "suspicious" of you. Their intent is to find any reason they can to pull you over.

That is what this is about, and these are things we all (except Nick, he's Canadian) learned about in 4th grade. Do you understand the argument now?

[shel311]

I don't know where you get half the stuff you make up.

It's just not worth my time, simply not.