Failured to Signal a Lane Change, Died Days Later

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Why would anyone with half a brain help .gov agents conduct an investigation of you? That's what those questions are for and why you're fool if you participate.


Apparently you haven't learned a thing from all of these infamous incidents...why not cooperate, unless you have something to hide...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Benito
Respect is earned not automatically granted.

When the cops start weeding out their bad apples and obeying their superiors instead of whining like little children, maybe then they'll start to earn some respect back.


So in the meantime people should be as disrespectful and uncooperative as possible?

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: hatt
Why would anyone with half a brain help .gov agents conduct an investigation of you? That's what those questions are for and why you're fool if you participate.


Apparently you haven't learned a thing from all of these infamous incidents...why not comply, unless you have something to hide...


One can value one's privacy, without having anything to hide.

 

[hatt]

So the 4th A is strickly for criminals?

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: hatt
Why would anyone with half a brain help .gov agents conduct an investigation of you? That's what those questions are for and why you're fool if you participate.


Apparently you haven't learned a thing from all of these infamous incidents...why not comply, unless you have something to hide...


One can value one's privacy, without having anything to hide.


And if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is being committed, he has every right to override your right to privacy...

 

[hatt]

You people are scary.

 

[sleddriver]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
It seems like the officer who's making arrest abusing the power. The driver smokes in her car is not probable cause to make an arrest, even the trooper doesn't like smoking.


That's the problem though...it "seems like..." You're in Ca. This happened in Tx. There's more to it than what yahoo "news" reports...

The first mistake she made was driving erractically enough to attrack the Sherrif's attention. After all, he did ask her "What's wrong?" He could see she was visibly upset. She might have been smoking to calm her nerves. At this point, she had a decision to make. Calm down or go postal. Apparently, she was too upset to consider her (better) options.

Finally, your subject line "Failured to signal a lane change, died days later" not only doesn't make sense, it's not true either. You connected the dots in the wrong order.

Race relations are the WORST they've been in decades. I wonder why? Who's best interests are being served by doing so? There's a reason it's not a good idea to pour gas on a hot fire....

 

[wrcsixeight]

Pulled over for not signalling a lane change.

How many cars drove by during this video?

Was there anybody to even signal to?

The pulling over for a non signalling is pretty much a [censored] reason. He wanted a reason to pull her over, and even if she had signalled, and executed a precise lane change, he could have pulled her over anyway and states that as a reason. This was an exploratory reason for pulling a vehicle over, and could have been so obvious to the woman that she gushed in her own indignation and decided to show the man her contempt with her attitude.

Non use of a turn signal will always be claimed as a reason for a vehicular stop when there is no other.

Now the woman's attitude and behavior were also disgusting. Another person who feels that rules do not apply to them, that their emotional state of mind at that moment somehow alleviates any responsibility of their own actions or inactions.

Do we know if she was already smoking when pulled over, perhaps she lit up right in front of the cop and blew smoke in his face. It seems to be assumed that she was already smoking and that the smoke was just an annoyance rather than the possibility it was used as a passive weapon.

If somebody intentionally blows smoke in my face it is an incredible insult and might lead to broken bones, if it is a man.

Both humans in this interaction fell prey to their egoes and overwhelming self importance.

I hold both in contempt.

 

[02SE]

I didn't read the entire thread, so maybe this has already been pointed out.

The title of the tread should be: 'Failed to Signal a Lane Change, commits suicide days later.'

 

[Benito]

Too many cops need to be the alpha dog.

Extracts from Hempstead Police Vision Statement, Mission Statement etc:

"WE WILL PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHO TAKE PRIDE IN PERFORMING THEIR DUTIES IN A FAIR AND EQUITABLE MANNER, SETTING A HIGH STANDARD OF WHICH OUR CITIZENS CAN BE PROUD"

"TREATING ALL PERSONS WITH FAIRNESS, RESPECT, AND DIGNITY"

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: hatt
Why would anyone with half a brain help .gov agents conduct an investigation of you? That's what those questions are for and why you're fool if you participate.


Apparently you haven't learned a thing from all of these infamous incidents...why not comply, unless you have something to hide...


One can value one's privacy, without having anything to hide.


And if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is being committed, he has every right to override your right to privacy...


And if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is being committed, the person of interest in that crime most assuredly SHOULD NOT BE TALKING.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: hatt
You people are scary.


Boot-lickers certainly are.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Win
And if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is being committed, the person of interest in that crime most assuredly SHOULD NOT BE TALKING.


Unless the officer is asking the person questions...if he/she is and the person refuses to answer, they are being uncooperative...what do you expect the officer to do then, just let the person go?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Some of you are taking this way out of context...nobody is saying you need to be "subservient", or "kiss the cop's boots" if you're stopped by a cop....it's called common courtesy...unfortunately, many in today's society don't know what this is...


Yeah, the same idjits who get all wadded up about "name calling" are the first ones to use 'Boot lickers' and 'kiss ups' in the thread.

I know what they can kiss...

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: grampi


Unless the officer is asking the person questions...if he/she is and the person refuses to answer, they are being uncooperative...what do you expect the officer to do then, just let the person go?
If the cop has reasonable suspicion he doesn't need you to cooperate. If he has nothing and you don't talk he has to let you go. What else can he do? Make up RS? I do not think you have any clue what the actual laws are.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Win
And if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is being committed, the person of interest in that crime most assuredly SHOULD NOT BE TALKING.


Unless the officer is asking the person questions...if he/she is and the person refuses to answer, they are being uncooperative...what do you expect the officer to do then, just let the person go?


Not answering is a 5th amendment right.

If the cop detains you just because you didn't answer ie he / she / it has no reasonable basis for detaining or searching your property, then that's violating the 4th amendment.

These things were put in place to protect us from the government. So yeah, if you don't answer, because you choose to exercise your right to privacy, the cop has to let you go.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Win
And if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is being committed, the person of interest in that crime most assuredly SHOULD NOT BE TALKING.


Unless the officer is asking the person questions...if he/she is and the person refuses to answer, they are being uncooperative...what do you expect the officer to do then, just let the person go?


I would expect him / her to obey the laws and follow the applicable rules of criminal procedure in his / her jurisdiction.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: grampi


And if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is being committed, he has every right to override your right to privacy...

You are wasting your time grampi. Some folks have a propensity to prove that the Constitution and Bill of Rights gives legitimacy to act of being an [censored]hat instead of using common courtesy to the officers who 99.99% of the time do the right thing.

I am happy being respectful and treating others (not the guberment) like I would have them treat me were I in that position. That is a great leap of advanced thought though for some

I love that those folks are happy to indulge in this and get a ticket, then go to court..while I say "yes sir, no sir" am told by the officer to have a nice day as I drive away with no ticket.

I always told my daughter to watch how her significant other treats her. Because one day he will treat her the same way. She learned that lesson the hard day and has told me how right I was.

My then girlfriend and now wife told me one of the reasons I made the cut was how I treated people. Worked for me.

Hey ..have a nice day guys.

 

[hatt]

Please explain how a person following the law and using their Rights is disrespectful to law enforcement?

That notion is as dumb as mail carriers being offended by envelopes.

 

[KD0AXS]

Originally Posted By: grampi


And if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is being committed, he has every right to override your right to privacy...


Actually, they need probable cause.