Posted on 07/28/2023 9:01:14 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
When I was taking my wife back from her 5 year colonoscopy exam, we went througe the local air base in order to process an veterans id renewal. The APs stopped us outside the front gate and asked, “do you mind if we search your car”? My answer was precisely, “I really prefer that you don’t do that”. That way I really did not appear uncooperative. I explained my situation, but I don’t think it mattered. The APs just said “OK”, and we left. Of course I never carry my weapon onto a military base. Cannot be legally done unless I am carrying it to the armory for storage.
RE: In a court of law. If you were presumed innocent, they would never pull you over
So you’re saying that you are ALWAYS presumed guilty by the simple fact of them pulling you over? If so, In the case of going through a STOP sign without stopping, how does the officer prove that you did without any evidence other than his word? And if his word is always good enough, then the adage about being presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty is simply a cliche.
It’s like EJ CARROLL accusing Trump of raping her without any proof other than because she said so and the court believing her.
They don't respond to car theft, petty theft, don't respond to burglary, slowly respond to robbery and when children are getting killed it's 50/50 if they go or stay behind the barricade.
Get rid of qualified immunity and when/if they are fired, prevent them from going 3 miles down the road and becoming a LEO for another municipality. Make it a felony to mute or tamper with their recording device (like they always do), mandatory test them for adderall, testosterone and other chemical stimulants.
"protect and serve".... uh, sure.
https://youtu.be/Nz5prjhYGNg
Why would they pull you over if you were presumed innocent? If they clock you doing 70 in a 55 zone, why would they pull you over if they thought you were innocent of speeding?
“Presumed innocent until proven guilty” are solely in the instructions to the jury. BTDT
RE: Why would they pull you over if you were presumed innocent?
That would be like asking — why would Trump be indicted for raping Ms. Carroll if he were presumed innocent?
But to answer your question, Because :
1. It could be possible that they were mistaken in the case of the STOP sign. How many seconds must one stop to be considered in violation?
2. Because it’s possible that the county is running out of revenue and the cops are being used as revenue generators.
So, how to resolve this? Answer: VISUAL and/ or PHYSICAL evidence that you indeed ran a STOP sign. In both Carroll’s accusation and the cop’s, we need an ACTUAL CAMERA that clearly showed that I did ran a STOP sign and in Ms. Carroll’s case, security cameras showing that Trump was with her at the time of the supposed assault. If these cannot be produced, then you and Trump ought to be presumed innocent. That is, if this legal principle which the United States claims to adhere to is valid.
RE: if they clock you doing 70 in a 55 zone, why would they pull you over if they thought you were innocent of speeding?
There you go — VISUAL, PHYSICAL RECORDED evidence. If the speed cameras can record this speeding event, then yes THERE IS EVIDENCE OF GUILT. Where is that evidence in the case of going through a STOP sign?
Similarly, where is the evidence that Trump sexually assaulted her accuser?
And speaking of going 70 MPH in a 55 MPH expressway, anybody who drives knows that enforcement of this is ARBITRARY.
How many of the hundreds of motorists on the highway that you see everyday are NOT actually stopped even if they exceed 55 MPH? Let’s be honest, very few. I personally just follow the flow of traffic and it more often than not, averages at least 65 MPH. I’d get honked on or bypassed often if I just obediently did 55 MPH.
That would make almost every driver in my county of over a million people criminals.
Some reporter in our local daily writes that He observed that enforcement varies depending on the county’s tax revenues at the moment.
It doesn’t matter if there is evidence if you are automatically presumed innocent
I used to commute 150 miles each way to a project series at Fort Riley. Sometimes i would go for a week and sometime out and back in a day. Typically 80 mph+ in a Tahoe or big caddy with a Northstar. Rarely stopped. When stopped four or five times over a five year period i always was given a warning verbal or written. So over 400 runs never anything but professional.
RE: It doesn’t matter if there is evidence if you are automatically presumed innocent
So, you agree with me then that if I get a ticket for allegedly running a STOP sign and I dispute it in court, and the cops don’t appear in court ( most often, they don’t), and even if they do, they cannot produce evidence, the ticket should be considered invalid?
it would also SEEM that fullerton must be an extremely dangerous place for cops, as they never do even the simplest stop without at least 6 cops, usually more ...
in rural Nye, Berkeley, and Richland counties, cops routinely operate by their lonesome selves even at night ...
It’s irrelevant because you are in court where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Outside of court, you are presumed guilty until proven not guilty.
“it would also SEEM that fullerton must be an extremely dangerous place for cops, as they never do even the simplest stop without at least 6 cops”
Good point.
They have learned from the gangs—strength is in numbers.
One benefit of the group approach is that it protects individual cops from (often false) claims of brutality/lawsuits since all decisions are group decisions.
While the OP narrators really like it—it is the cop version of defensive medicine—practicing your profession with avoiding lawsuits in mind at all times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.