Utopia Talk / Politics / Philando Castile

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 22 03:08:19 Where is the NRA on this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMKcWz5nNoM What a fucking tragedy. You hear him moan in the end slowly dying "I wasn't reaching for it..."
Neverwoods Member	Thu Jun 22 03:54:32 What do you expect from the NRA? This issue has gone on long enough. The US police are trained to act. Every time something like this happens it's a bit sad. death by policy.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 22 04:53:19 To stand up for a person who had license to carry? They seem awfully silent. Wouldn't want to speculate as to why.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 07:41:31 How about provide more facts to it: 1) yes, he had a permit. 2) he wasnt pulled over because he was black, it eas a malfunctioning brake lights 3) the officer was cordial and not belligerent. 4) castile did provide him with his license and other information. 5) castile correctly informed him that he had a gun on them. 6) officer told him not to reach for it and gabe directives to not reach for the gun [or should for anything after divulging there is a gun] 7) he didnt listen to directives [regardless if he was reaching for the gun or not] and proceeded to reach for something It is unfortunate of what took place. But it takes but a moment for someone to reach for a gun and ahoot the officer. And since castile got hos permit, it would be prudent to say that hebhad to go through some safety course and had a class in regards to being a gun owner, especially while carrying in a car. He did inform, which is gokd, but failed everywhere else. 8) lastly he was on a substance while driving that impairs judgement.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 22 10:24:38 lol, I gave you the video of the entire incident.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 22 10:28:14 Smoking weed does not impair your judgment in that way, no. And it does not jive well, to first declare you have a gun and then try to kill the cop, does it?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Jun 22 10:28:25 sounds like he was continuing whatever action the cop was clearly alarmed about so not sure why everyone's so shocked cop was friendly at start, clearly not out hunting black people he supposedly had been pulled over 50x or something, i wonder if just because he never fixed his brake lights which seemed barely working
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 10:59:28 You gave the video, which ive seen alot. And also read what the courts determined. So there you go. You cannot sit there and tell me that after identifying you have a firearm, regardless of you have a permit or not. That does not escalate the danger factor for the officer. Thus, after identifying the officer giving you a directive. Be it keeping your hands where i can see them or specifically stating dont reach for your gun. As their hands moves toward an unknown (out of sight) area that is now construed that you are reaching for their firearm.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 11:00:48 "2) he wasnt pulled over because he was black, it eas a malfunctioning brake lights" A single bulb was burned out. The rest were still working. The officer later said Castile's description matched that of a robbery suspect. Of course, dipshit didn't perform a felony stop. "4) castile did provide him with his license and other information." Castile provided the insurance card, from the same wallet. Next to come would have been his license and carry card. "6) officer told him not to reach for it and gabe directives to not reach for the gun [or should for anything after divulging there is a gun] 7) he didnt listen to directives [regardless if he was reaching for the gun or not] and proceeded to reach for something" That's because dipshit gave conflicting commands, dipshit. Castile was now following two orders: - Get your license - Don't reach for your gun Which is why he repeatedly stated he wasn't reaching for it. Note the officer on the other side of the car didn't panic, didn't even reach for his gun.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 11:06:41 "You cannot sit there and tell me that after identifying you have a firearm, regardless of you have a permit or not. That does not escalate the danger factor for the officer." Uhh what? I absolutely can. Someone who intends to do harm to a cop isn't volunteering that they have a weapon. The act of telling the officer this is, in itself, an act of deescalation. Or, it should be, if the officer isn't a panicky coward.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 22 11:17:03 I just want to clarify something. 1. I did not blame the cop for anything. 2. Or say that he was stopped becuz racist cop I gave the NRA shit and may have insinuated they are inconsistent. The cop obviously has no business being a cop. I think it was evident from the VIDEO (that details everything deluded listed and claims I did not give the facts) that he was very remorseful. I can only feel sorry for him, he made a little kid fatherless. Calm the fuck down home alone.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 11:18:22 "A single bulb was burned out. The rest were still working" So it is malfunctioning. Check. Still can make a stop. "The officer later said Castile's description matched that of a robbery suspect. Of course, dipshit didn't perform a felony stop." It isnt required in that nature. As there been plenty of reasonable stops for people fitting a description and ultimately matching the subject. "Castile provided the insurance card, from the same wallet. Next to come would have been his license and carry card." Regardless, the officer told him not "reach for it" ans stating it multiple times. Ans the officer asked for the license ans registration right after telling him why he was pulled over. Castile didnt listen to the directives. That instills reasonable fear for that officer because castile wasnt listening and could be reaching for his gun. Split second decision and it couls be that quick for him to grab the gun and shoot the officer. As for your other nonsense. It isnt conflicting. Castile said i have a gun. Office said "dont reach for it" that is saying for him to stop his actions because now a gun has been identified. The observing officer, probably had limited vision snd focusing on the passenger so his attention was divided. And it may be possible he didnt hear catile identify he had a gun on them. Difference between contact officerand observing officer. Dipshit.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 22 11:18:26 The dying mans last breath was "I wasn't reaching for it".
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 11:22:14 "Uhh what? I absolutely can. Someone who intends to do harm to a cop isn't volunteering that they have a weapon. The act of telling the officer this is, in itself, an act of deescalation. Or, it should be, if the officer isn't a panicky coward." Yeah, i know. I mean like ever in the history of pulling someone over, no one has ever tried to manipulate a situation in an attempt to ease a cops worry at all to later assault or in this case shoot them. Nope, never. So the cop should have been "oh ok he told me, then he has to be an okay guy" versus "oh hey, he has a gun on him, danger just increased, i need him to really listen to my directives, oh he isnt, uh oh, this guy may habe intent to harm me"
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 11:25:26 "The dying mans last breath was "I wasn't reaching for it"." No one ever uses a ruse. Ever. Point is, it is sad he lost his life. It is unfortunate, and i would also agree that officer was more gung ho than he should. But i also see the reasonableness behind the officers response. And cannot fault him. Versus the whole he was pulled over because he was black.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 11:28:21 And courts cleared him. So thats it. But why would the NRA care?
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 11:28:51 "So it is malfunctioning. Check. Still can make a stop." The light worked. When he pressed the brake pedal, the lights came on. Arguing for legitimate stops in this case is nothing more than revenue-gathering. "It isnt required in that nature." Then you don't get to later use it as justification for doubt of officer safety. Either you think he's a robbery suspect, and you perform a felony stop, or it's a regular stop, and there is no justification for automatic escalation. "Regardless, the officer told him not "reach for it" ans stating it multiple times." And Castile said, "I'm not", multiple times. If you want his hands on the wheel, tell him to put his hands on the wheel. "Split second decision" If a CCer shot a person for furtive hand movements, they would be in jail. "It isnt conflicting." Yes, it is, you fucking insane moron; he has two orders. You're giving the officer "split second" benefit of the doubt, but assuming Castile can read minds, and equally make split second decisions knowing that one order trumps another and he can't follow both at once. "because now a gun has been identified." i.e. Piggy panicked because he heard the word "firearm". His superiors recognized this; that's why he's been fired. "probably had limited vision snd focusing on the passenger so his attention was divided." At this point you're inventing justification, because you don't want to admit you're wrong. PROBABLY. lol "Kauser testified in court that he didn’t smell burnt marijuana at car — Yanez told authorities he could — and that he never saw a gun in Castile’s car nor perceived the situation as potentially threatening until shots rang out. He also said he was surprised when Yanez drew his gun and fired" http://www...-what-witnesses-said-at-trial/
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 11:29:55 "No one ever uses a ruse. Ever." You're a fucking idiot. Yes, a criminal intending to shoot cops on either side of him will tell him he has a weapon, THEN say he's not reaching for it. Long-con ruse. Holy fuck the retardation is astounding.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 11:38:36 And here's the relevant law: Subdivision 1.Stoplights. (a) Any vehicle may be equipped and when required under this chapter, shall be equipped with at least two stop lamps on the rear which shall emit a red or yellow light and which shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake and which may, but need not be, incorporated with the tail lamps and which shall be plainly visible and understandable from a distance of 100 feet to the rear during normal sunlight and at night. http://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169.57 With two lights on each side, one burned bulb is not justification for a stop, so long as the other on the same side is working. Court precedent backing this: The Heien court then proceeded to analyze whether the malfunctioning of a single brake light when a functioning brake light is present is a violation of G.S. 20-129(g), G.S. 20-129(d), or G.S. 20-138.3 (a statute governing the scope of safety inspections). The court concluded that G.S. 20-129(g) requires only one stop lamp—or brake light—on a vehicle and that the requirements of G.S. 20-129(d) apply only to “rear lamps,” equipment that is separate and distinct from stop lamps. While the court characterized the definition of “stop lamp” as “antiquated” and “not reflecting actual vehicle equipment now included in most automobiles,” it noted that “only the General Assembly . . . can modify and update this outdated statutory language.” Slip. op. at 13. (Interestingly enough, an appellate court in Florida made a similar observation with respect to that state’s “stop lamp” laws several years ago. See Zarba v. State, 993 So. 2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (noting its observation in an earlier case “‘that if the Florida legislature wished to do so, it could amend the statute to require that when a vehicle is equipped with three stop lamps, all three of them must be operational,’” and commenting that “[t]o date, the legislature has not seen fit to amend the statute.”). Heien also rejected the State’s argument that the malfunctioning brake light provided reasonable suspicion for a violation of G.S. 20-183.3, which renders inspection of “[l]ights, as required by G.S. 20-129 or G.S. 20-129.1,” to see if they are in safe operating condition, part of the safety inspection process. https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/is-a-burned-out-brake-light-a-basis-for-a-stop/ BTFO
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 22 11:44:16 >>No one ever uses a ruse. Ever.<< While dying? lol ok. You are obviously too emotionally invested in this. Are you a police?
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 11:54:03 "The light worked. When he pressed the brake pedal, the lights came on. Arguing for legitimate stops in this case is nothing more than revenue-gathering. " Officer told him exactly why it was malfunctioning. Regardless how you personally feel about stops and cops. Your bias is astounding. "And Castile said, "I'm not", multiple times. If you want his hands on the wheel, tell him to put his hands on the wheel. " Yeah, because people are always honest with their intentions. A reasonable person, not impaired, would probably stop their action of "reaching" for anything after being given a directive by a law enforcement officer to "not reach for it". You are now arguing semantics and articulation. But it was clear directive of ceasing the action. Regardless id he was reaching for a weapon or not. Plus castile had prior knowledge of what to do in a stop. He went through a course to obtain his lermit. They do teach how to compose and act during those situations if you intend to carry. "Yes, it is, you fucking insane moron; he has two orders. You're giving the officer "split second" benefit of the doubt, but assuming Castile can read minds, and equally make split second decisions knowing that one order trumps another and he can't follow both at once. " This argument is getting old. If you cannot comprehend "dont reach for it" and continue the action. Either you are impaired or have no rationale. "e. Piggy panicked because he heard the word "firearm". His superiors recognized this; that's why he's been fired. I know you hate cops. But if you can just set aside your bias and hatred and bigotry snd stop being a seb. You would see that it wpuld be particularly hard tp keep your job being charged with a crime. " this point you're inventing justification, because you don't want to admit you're wrong. PROBABLY. lol " No explaining a possible reason. Get over it. As for the testimony, its probably true. But then again, he wasnt the contact officer. Again difference betweem the two.
Aeros Member	Thu Jun 22 11:55:42 "Where is the NRA on this?" The NRA originally got its start to prevent black people from owning weapons you know.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 12:03:37 "Your bias is astounding." I have provided the relevant law and court precedent. It's not my fault you think that these can just be suspended on an officer's whim. "Yeah, because people are always honest with their intentions." You're pretending it's rational for a person to declare their weapon then behave violently with it afterward. If Castile wanted to ambush a cop, he would have done it while Yanez was relaxed. "But it was clear directive of ceasing the action." No. It was clear directive to not reach for his gun. Words matter, Seb. "If you cannot comprehend "dont reach for it" and continue the action." The officer at no point told Castile to freeze. You are inventing justification one after the other. "I know you hate cops." No, I hate law-abiding citizens getting shot in the streets, and an entrenched legal system that protects the perpetrators. A guy who shoots a cop about to shoot his dog gets the death penalty, but citizens get shot every day of the week and unions, DAs, and judges break the piggy bank to free every offender. But sure Seb, I'm critical of a panicky trigger-happy-no-longer-cop-thank-God, so I hate all cops. "You would see that it wpuld be particularly hard tp keep your job being charged with a crime." He was fired after the trial. Here's the issue: you have not researched this case beyond cursory reading of headlines, yet have formed an opinion and are convinced you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. "No explaining a possible reason. Get over it." So again, you're inventing justification. Your arguments are not rooted in fact. BTFO
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 12:04:59 Forwyn you moron: 1) why are you citing north carolina law? 2) and why dont you post the entirety of the law. "Subd. 3. Maitnance (a) when a vehicle is equipped with stpp lamps pr signal lamps, such lamps shall at all times be mainttained in good working condition. (B) no stop lamps or signal lamp shall project a glaring or dazzling light. (C) all mechanical signal devices shall be self-illumined when im use at all the times when lightrd lamps on vehicles are required. Yeah, GTFO. Because your bias against cops clouds your judgement. Youre dismissed now. Escpecially since the courts cleared him.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 12:10:36 You posted a relavant minnesota law, but you hid parts of it that applies as to why a stop was made. And here is your problem, because your bias against cops and you think it is possible for a person to keep their job with a criminal charge or a being cleared wpuld be able to keep his job in a hypersenstive area. He may be a cop again but not but woth forwyns logic...see see he was fired. Who knows what would be in his future now. But at the dame time. It is humorous you would assume he wpuld be able to keep his job in that city rrgarding thos incident. Lol
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 12:13:16 Delude doesn't even understand the difference between law and precedent. He also does not realize that dozens of cops have kept their jobs after high-profile shootings.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 12:13:18 Classic forwyn is classic.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 12:13:58 Forwyn thinks that criminals are incapable of being elaborate.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 12:14:40 Forwyn apparently cant read his own link to minnesota law.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 12:14:54 Delude invents fictional mastermind personas to ascribe to dead fathers, to imply that someone ambushing cops would tell the cops he has a gun beforehand. Then, he accuses others of having bias. lol
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 12:16:01 Also forwyn thinks north carolina law is the same s minnesota law. Lol
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 12:16:42 Again, court precedent shows that so long as the required lights are functioning, there is no justification for a stop. If Castile had two burned out lights, i.e. one side is non-functioning, different discussion.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 12:17:11 Lol forwyn thinks when explanation or scenarios given that are possible, they cant be possible. Because a cop is involved and he hates cops
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 12:17:13 Minnesota law + court precedent. Delude = literal braindead retard
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 12:17:41 lol Delude thinks fictional mastermind criminal personas are justification for shooting law-abiding citizens, and facts are irrelevant
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 22 12:17:59 What exactly is elaborate about using your last breath to moan "I wasn't reaching for it.." and die?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 22 12:19:04 Well he can't be a literal brain dead moron, he is showing a fair amount of brain activity. Or was that not meant to be read literally? :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 22 12:19:21 hue hue hue
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 12:20:25 Yes, even Downies show brain activity.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 12:21:39 Forwyn again is using north carolina as a citing for Minnesota where it clearly gives the clear for cops in Minnesota to make traffic stops. Apparently forywn thinks all cops in Minnesota are violating laws that apply only in north carolina.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Jun 22 12:21:53 "What exactly is elaborate about using your last breath to moan "I wasn't reaching for it.." and die?" putin
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 12:24:57 Delude again not understanding a basic concept that court precedent regarding specific wording such as "stop lamps", that precedent reaches across state lines, because his daddy is a cop.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 12:30:56 Forwyn is embarrassed he didnt read the law he cited.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 12:53:59 Delude doubling down that precedent can't cross state lines.
John Adams Member	Thu Jun 22 12:58:08 The law established and that was cited; applied to the specific case that the officer in North Carolina interpreted his state law incorrectly to make the traffic stop that inherently involved the arrest of the subject on cocaine trafficking. And the USC rules that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can provide "individualized suspicion" required by 4th amendment to justify a traffic stop. This applies accross state lines. But for the sake of the debate, and for what has been shared. The offficer did make a legal stopped based upon Minnesota codified laws. My credentials. I work for my state legislature.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 12:59:21 Again forwyn cant comprehend his own sources. Sad.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 13:17:04 Again Delude doesn't know what he's talking about, which is why he relies on fictional criminal mastermind ambusher theories. Minnesota uses the same relevant "stop lamp" terminology. It has the same requirements - NC modified their law after this ruling because of the nebulous nature. But cop-happy USSC had decided over and over that cops can be wrong and still in the right. So ultimately, law is completely irrelevant.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 13:20:55 Forwyn is trying to backtrack as realizes he cant read laws nor understand them as he mask his mistake blaming us supreme court to be "muh cop happy". Forwyn also believes that people do not ambush cpps. Or plan ways to ambush cops. Forwyn doesnt believe criminals are capable of such things. Forwyn also likes to celebrate cops deaths.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 13:26:17 Forwyn doesn't believe this exists; http://www...query=cops+ambushed+and+killed
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 22 13:30:31 Do you really believe that?
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 13:30:43 Forwyn really shows how dumb he is. Can't even correctly cite a law to use it to support his argument and become a landmine of fail. What a clownshoe.
Trolly McSerious Member	Thu Jun 22 13:34:42 I dare say people are capable of anything. But my own opinion about this situation. I am thinking the driver legitimately was grabbing more creditials for the officer. The officer was panicking at the disco. But I can't say for sure if i were in that situation i would respond the same way. It could become too late. But, alas, dude got shot. Btw forwyn is dumb. Lol.
Trolly McDick Member	Thu Jun 22 13:35:39 You mean he is fucking dumb.
Trolly McSerious Member	Thu Jun 22 13:35:57 I stand corrected.
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 13:37:07 Be cool on forwyn, he is only the american-seb.
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 13:38:44 Get ready for a focus on how we all are multis and trolls. Forwyn will use that as a defense for his inadequacies. News flash: we know who we are.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 22 13:40:00 People can be capable of many things, but specifically. He does not believe cops can get ambushed? Isn't there enough to disagree over?
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 13:54:30 When criminals ambush cops, they don't sit calmly in the car, seatbelt on, and inform the cop that they have a weapon. Delude still uses bullshit strawmen, like the sad clown he is. Trolly squad also don't understand court precedent. They clearly stated that one burned out lamp is not justification for a stop so long as there is another lamp. Yes, the USSC came back later and said no, law is irrelevant, cops can make whatever fucking stops they want so long as they have "reasonable suspicion". We are required to know the law, they aren't. We are required to show discretion, they aren't. We are required to restrain force, they aren't. The Supreme Court also said gold confiscation was legal, segregation was legal, Japanese internment was legal. But the lower court stands - even if the cops get a reason to pull Castile over, he wouldn't have even gotten a citation that would stick, if there hadn't been a panicky trigger-happy cop there.
Trolly McSerious Member	Thu Jun 22 13:55:42 This is hilarious.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 13:55:52 @ multi-squad, just kill yourself IRL, no defense necessary.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Jun 22 13:57:59 Should have been convicted of manslaughter, hard to understand why he wasn't. Not a murder, but cop's panic was not justified, certainly not a good enough reason to shoot. He could have at least told the guy to put his hands on dashboard. This is an exampl of police horseshit where some cops invent this fear for their lives and, even if they truly believed their life was in danger, it wasn't. This is what manslaughter covers.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 13:57:59 Lol @ trolly squad. Anyways, again forwyn still defending the fact that he tried to cite a ruling and nc law that doesnt apply to minnesota and cant get over it. Forwyn, yes or no. Did the cop have the legal right to stop castile's car.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Jun 22 13:59:51 And don't get me started on NRA and weed bullshit
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 14:01:01 Why is forwyn getting upset at us? He was the one that fucked up.
Trolly McDick Member	Thu Jun 22 14:01:48 Forwyn fucked up so hard that he wants to blame the ussc for the shooting.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:02:03 NC ruling is relevant to the Minnesota law, because they have the same legal definitions and requirements. Likewise, the USSC ruling is relevant to the stop. Yes, cop can pull over Castile - but the stop is based on a wrongful assumption, and a good lawyer would get any brake light citation thrown out. So no charges.
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 14:02:14 That is......wait for it, awesome.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:04:54 USSC shares blame in the entrenchment of non-cops being second-class citizens, certainly. At any time of day, a US citizen can be pulled over for any tenuous reason at all, so long as the cop can keep his story straight, even if the citizen was perfectly within the law. Then, the citizen can be beaten/shot/arrested/assets seized, and the cop will, at worst, lose his job - on the rare occasion that cops even face charges, juries ALWAYS clear them. A large part of this is due to the very broad legal discretion cops have been given, outside the purview of legislative intent.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:05:23 So the cop had a legal right to stop. Which you earlier inferred they didnt have the legal right to stop as you attempted to cite a law to show they didnt have the right to stop bu they do. Do me a favor, retard. Cite the minnesota law and nc law. Its entirety. And keep in mind about subd 3. Of minnesota law that you refused to cite because it highlights how much full of shit you really are.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:06:27 Waiting fucknuts.....
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 14:06:55 Im waiting too.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:06:56 Based on proper legal understanding, yes, they would have no legal right to stop. But hey, cops aren't required to actually know the law, as us second-class citizens are.
Trolly McDick Member	Thu Jun 22 14:07:42 Forwyn is so reachig right now. For Mcdick.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:08:44 Not reaching at all. Cops can pull you over for any reason. If they were required to have knowledge of the law they accuse motorists of violating, Castile would not have been pulled over, unless he were actually suspected of being a robbery suspect.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:10:27 Wow. Forwyn. You really contradicted yourself. Base upon minn. Law regarding 169. 57 vehicle signals. Subd 3. Did those cops have the legal right to make a traffic stop? Real simple.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:11:14 Nope. He had functioning lights. But per USSC, he's allowed to pull him over based on any reasonable suspicion, I will grant that. So point A overruled by point B.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:12:56 Cops have to have probable cause. Not for any reason. Any reason is vague. There may be a plethora of reasons that fits under probable cause. But cops cannot legally just randomly pull you over.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:13:44 Courts have ruled that drivers can be pulled over for driving too correctly - straight posture, 10-2 hands on wheel, because it's suspicious. So...semantics.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:17:32 Forwyn youre wrong. Hands down youre wrong. The coo indicated why castile was pulled over. The courts acknowledge it snd it was probable cause. This is fact. It was explained, hey you have a malfunctioning brake light. Supported by minn. Law re; veh. Signals subd3. Read it again. Sound out the words if you need to. Your opinion that the light was working is inconsequential. The operation and intention and the maitenence of the law falls under it. Hence why the cop, can pull him over. Legally. It was thr first thing out of the cops mouth. Ans even in the court proceedings this was acknowledged. Holy fuck you are like trump and seb put together.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:19:25 Cite it numbnuts: "Courts have ruled that drivers can be pulled over for driving too correctly - straight posture, 10-2 hands on wheel, because it's suspicious. So...semantics." Or will this be another embarassing attempt by you to completely fail in comprehension of laws.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:20:05 NC law includes a "good working order". Again, you must meet the numerical requirement of lights. But hey...you can be pulled over for any reason. And then shot even though you violated no laws, because of a trigger-happy panicked kid.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:21:15 God damn even John Adamd explained how they could be pulled over. Its like youre hot rod.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:22:43 Forwyn there you go again. The entirety of nc law AND the entirety of mn law specifically subd3. Dont be shy, dipshit.
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 14:25:54 Im bored.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:25:56 Both laws contain clauses mandating working lights. Precedent applies. "God damn even John Adamd explained how they could be pulled over." And I conceded that point.
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 14:26:56 Yeah this wasn't as exciting as i thought it would be and the others are done with their smoke breaks and went back to work.
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 14:27:20 I am off today but need to cut grass.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:28:46 Sergeant Gazarek testified that he became suspicious of this vehicle upon viewing the driver, a white female, staring straight ahead and driving with her hands placed on the steering wheel in the eight and four position, even though he repeatedly testified that 3. driving in this manner is safe and consistent with what is taught in a driver's education course. Gazarek testified that when he caught up to the vehicle, he ran the vehicle's tag and discovered the vehicle had been rented in Texas. He also noticed that there were two children seated in the back. Gazarek testified that he then sped up to pass the vehicle, but when he pulled up alongside the driver he viewed the appellant, a black male, for the first time and noticed that they were both staring straight ahead. Gazarek testified that he found this behavior suspicious so he reduced his speed and followed them. http://www.../pdf/6/2009/2009-Ohio-3804.pdf
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:31:19 "With respect to the issue of pretext stops, recent case law has held that a stop and detention is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment when a police officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred, even though the officer was motivated to make the stop by a belief that the violator might be engaged in other, more serious criminal activity." i.e. any reason at all
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:33:42 You're beating around the bush and refuse to acknowledge subd 3. (B).
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:38:28 Jesus fucking h christ. You are really reaching. Again you are refusing the cite the reason why they were pulled over. It goes on to state in that case. They were pulled over for following too closely to a semi. Why the bullshit, forwyn?
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 14:39:05 Because he is a bullshitter?
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:41:03 No because he wants to be selective in what he reveals to enforce his point and is ultimately wrong. Like he has been in this in this thread and much of the forums.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:41:22 "refuse to acknowledge subd 3. (B)." No, I did - NC law has an equivalent "good working order" clause. "They were pulled over for following too closely to a semi." i.e. Cop followed them for several minutes - because they were looking ahead and driver had both hands on wheel they never broken the speed limit, they slowed down when they caught up to the cop, but after several minutes he found a reason to pull them over. Any driver in the world can be pulled over if a cop has several minutes to follow you.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:41:55 You should be glad, Delude - I'm agreeing with you that a cop can invent whatever reason he likes to pull you over. Why debate this?
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:42:38 they never broke the speed limit, they slowed down when they caught up to the semi*
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:43:40 So far he has cite two laws that do not apply to each other. Refuses to acknowledge that the both cops he is now citing both had probable cause to pull the subjects over. Doesnt believe criminals or people havr the capability to set up elaborate ambushes on cops. And displays how he hates cops. He must be a BLM member.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:46:34 No, numbnuts, again you said they were pulled over for being "too correct" "...vehicle was traveling one and on half car lengths behind the semi, and he stopped the vehivle for following too closely in violation of RC 451134." Yeah, i can see your confusion they were stopped for being "too correct."
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:47:18 "Refuses to acknowledge that the both cops he is now citing both had probable cause to pull the subjects over." Driving correctly is suspicious. Having working lights can get you pulled over, even within the law. "Doesnt believe criminals or people havr the capability to set up elaborate ambushes on cops." Idiotic strawman that ignores the fact that legal carriers and those who volunteer that they're carrying are far less likely to kill cops than those who don't. "And displays how he hates cops." I hate double standards, and I strive for equal protection under the law. "He must be a BLM member." Right, that's why I rail against identity politics in multiple threads. lol.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:48:30 "Yeah, i can see your confusion they were stopped for being "too correct."" His reason for following them was that they were driving correctly. Yes, after several minutes he invented a reason to pull them over. As I said probably over a dozen times now, per acceding to JA's point, cops can pull you over for whatever reason they can come up with.
	show deleted posts