Utopia Talk / Politics / Castile 2

Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:51:32 Lol, jeez. Again you are wanting to cite NC law for Minn. Law.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:53:06 They werent pulled over for being tok correct as you claimed. They violated a law and was pulled over for that. Regardless id their behaviour appeared suspicious or not.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 22 14:54:17 *groan*
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:54:33 And NC law is inherrny different than minn..law.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:54:50 Inherently*
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 14:56:23 No. Both reference "stop lamps" which the judges criticized. Both reference keeping them properly maintained. But at the end of the day, they give a numerical requirement, and Castile met that requirement. But cops can pull you over for any reason. So there's that.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:56:59 And you are taking the words out of context of what john said. He statdd based upon the minn. Codified law the cops had the legal right to stop.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 14:57:53 Any reason that is probable cause base upon codified laws. But its cool, live in that bubble of yours.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 15:01:51 Yes, probable cause even based on a faulty understanding of the law. NC changed their law after this ruling, because even though the cop was in the clear based on his understanding of the law, the driver had not broken any traffic laws by having one light burned out.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 15:02:34 Minn..law. states shall be equipped with at least TWO stop lamps on the rear... It continues (you know the part you left out) subd 3. (B) no stop lamps or signal lamp shall project glsring or dazzling light. Nc law: Equipped with A, that is singular, A stop lamp on thr rear of the vehicle. There is the difference that you refuse to acknowledge. And been wronf the entire. Hence why i told you to read it over and over.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 15:05:48 Youre inferring the minn cop was in correct in stopping the vehicle legally. Youre wrong.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 15:28:44 Are you now implying the lights were dazzling? "refuse to acknowledge" Why would I need to acknowledge that Minn requires one more light than NC? They both have numerical requirements, and Castile had THREE working lights. LOL "Youre inferring the minn cop was in correct in stopping the vehicle legally." No, I'm outright saying that the cop had the right to stop Castile, but only based on his faulty legal understanding. First-class citizens don't need to know the law like the lessers do.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 15:36:46 You are to focus on the numerical value of the lights. You were ignoring one subsection of the law that states in regards about maintenance. And that law explicitly states that no lights should be dazzling or glaring. Now you are a purposely being obtuse about the situation because clearly in the video you can see that one light or multiple lights top right corner of the vehicle passenger side as the officer States was malfunctioning and it was glaring. What you are refusing is to acknowledge what the law states you incorrectly applied a North Carolina law that doesn't even apply to Minnesota law and you continuously doing so. You also are incorrectly stating that the officer operated under a faulty legal understanding which you are wrong about. State how the Minnesota cop and anyway was wrong for pulling over that vehicle in regards to vehicle signals and the Minnesota codified law. You can't and you're trying and you're doing this because you're a fucking moron. You even took what John Adams posted in the last forum that the cop had a legal right to pull him over based upon the Minnesota codified law which clearly states that hey you need to have operating lights this is not correctly operating because it is glaring that was one of the reasons why or the probable cause as to why they were pulled over. But with your logic you're stating that they're basing off an old North Carolina law how fucking stupid are you really?
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 15:39:17 Even in court it is acknowledged that the cop had the legal right to pull mr. Castile over. And you are wanting to argue that he did not have the legal right to do so based upon the Minnesota law regarding vehicle signals under subsection 3 section B.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 15:42:29 First it was, "Well, one light was out." Then it was, "Well, you have to properly maintain ALL lights." Now it's, "Well, that light was glaring." And you're trying to tell me cops can't invent any reason they like to pull you over? lol. Was he pulled over because a light was out, or because the other was glaring? You're inventing reasons faster than a tailgating cop.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 15:43:11 Go back to all the post and state where I stated it was one light two lights or three lights I said malfunctioning light so stop putting words in my mouth and actually read or comprehend what we're talking about and stop being a fucking moron
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 15:44:07 No I'm telling you they have to baste the pong ball probable cause upon laws not invent reasons as you're the one that stating that you're the one that claimed that it could be any reason I am stating the opposite saying that it cannot be any reason unless it has anything to do with probable cause specified upon codified laws. Learn to read
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 15:45:58 Stupid talk to text period based upon probable cause*
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 15:46:53 Read the Minnesota login does it not state glaring or dazzling Or once again are you failing to not wanting to acknowledge the law that you cited at the beginning
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 15:47:09 Read the Minnesota login does it not state glaring or dazzling
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 15:52:13 So why are you citing it? Delude Member Thu Jun 22 15:02:34 Minn..law. states shall be equipped with at least TWO stop lamps on the rear... It continues (you know the part you left out) subd 3. (B) no stop lamps or signal lamp shall project glsring or dazzling light.
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 15:59:50 Because you are the one that cited both MN law and NC law in an attempt to show that the cop in MN did not have probable cause or legal right to make the stop. I cited it again, to show the difference between what MN law said compared to NC law. INCLUDING the part of the statute you purposely left off that clearly indicated as to why MN cop pulled over the vehicle. Versus the NC cop who mistakenly used an NC law to make his stop and where the USSC had to make a ruling in regards to that particular case. You continued for this duration to infer and claimed that the MN cop 'invented' a reason to pull Castile over and it was not legal. Which you are wrong and incorrect. With your own sources I demonstrated to you how the MN cop had the legal right to pull the vehicle over, citing the law you cited. Which interchangeably I used to show you the subtle differences. Because? You claimed they were the same.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 16:03:52 Unless you're claiming the cop pulled him over for the glare, minor differences are irrelevant, even differences in the required number of lights. What's relevant is: -Numerical requirement -Maintenance requirement -Driver pulled over for burned out light In both cases, the drivers met this numerical requirement, despite being down a light. I'm not really sure what's so hard about this. Cop still gets to pull the driver over, but the ticket wouldn't stick.
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:06:56 It would fall under that subsection because he is have a glaring light. And that establishes probable cause to be pulled over. You know, where you argued previously he didn't have that particular authority. And how would the ticket not stick, he did have a violation.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 16:09:40 Did the cop say he was pulling Castile over for a glaring light, or a light out? Are we inventing reasons again?
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:11:15 And you're the one that has a hard time understanding what probable cause is for the officer to have to make a legal right. You have been arguing against the concept. Going so far to make wrong statements that cops can "invent" reasons to pull anyone over. As you inferring that ignore laws to pull anyone over. Including the case where you made the claim that this person was pulled over for driving "too correctly" where the real fact was that they were pulled over for violation traffic laws for following too closely. Quite the opposes of being pulled over for driving "too correctly" where they incorrectly followed too closely. So here we go with forwyn logic where he changes the rules and ignore what is actually written.
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:11:39 Did you even watched the video, the officer clearly stated why he pulled him over.
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:14:16 The cop told him his brake light is out, specified which. And you can obviously see the passenger brake light was glaring. Which clearly falls under what? Oh subd 3 (b). Tadah!
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 16:18:12 HEY! This is still going on! How, drole. It's funny that the first words out of the officer's mouth was the specific reason why Castile was pulled over.
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 16:20:00 "The reason why I pulled you over your brake lights are out." -Pig "You're inventing reasons!" -Forseb LOL!
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 16:20:39 Forseb! Hey Forseb, do you even lawyer, bro? Hahahahaha!
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 16:21:59 I don't think I would ever want forseb to be a lawyer for me, his grasp of basic comprehension is so remedial.
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:22:49 "Thu Jun 22 16:09:40 Did the cop say he was pulling Castile over for a glaring light, or a light out? Are we inventing reasons again? " It's like you are really stuck on stupid.
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 16:24:08 Truther is going to Truth. Give him a minute.
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 16:25:15 The truth shall set you free. What I do not understand how this was already concluded, the court. And somehow Forseb is stated the copper didn't legally pull Castile over. It's like...forseb logic.
Trolly McDick Member	Thu Jun 22 16:25:33 Forseb McDick
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 16:25:54 "delude Member Thu Jun 22 16:06:56 It would fall under that subsection because he is have a glaring light." LOL
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 16:25:55 Hey dick
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 16:26:21 LOL Forseb
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:26:57 Forwyn must be blind as he couldn't see a glaring light.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 16:27:12 "The reason why I pulled you over your brake lights are out." "It would fall under that subsection because he is have a glaring light." LOL
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:27:38 Forwyn once again is embarrassed as he cited the law he used to make his argument and has been shown how much of a fucking imbecile he is.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 16:27:48 "Well, it's still legal because of the glare." - delude, inventing reasons after the fact.
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:29:09 "Did the cop say he was pulling Castile over for a glaring light, or a light out? Are we inventing reasons again? " Cop says "I pulled you over because your brake lights are out." Forwyn logic: I didn't ask if they were glaring or out. And I am incapable of being objective and able to read and comprehend laws.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 16:29:27 "It's legal regardless." -Forwyn REEEEEEEE - tards
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:29:39 Forwyn is now making shit up because he is wrong again.
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:30:07 Forwyn now ignores that the law states.
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 16:30:45 Forseb really is reaching again.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 16:31:11 Cop says "I pulled you over because your brake lights are out." -------- This is not a valid reason, Seblude, because Castile met the numerical requirements. You are ascribing reasons after the fact, in the same way that the cops decided to call Castile a robbery suspect to justify their use of force.
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:32:08 "Subd. 3.Maintenance. (a) When a vehicle is equipped with stop lamps or signal lamps, such lamps shall at all times be maintained 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 in use at the times when lighted lamps on vehicles are required." Forwyn goes...."but but he had two lights though." So Forwyn believes rest of the statute doesn't apply. LOL!
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 16:33:35 If Forseb really believes that only one part of a statute is taken into account and other parts are not applicable. Then forseb really is a retard. You can't argue any other way than to say Forseb is really, really dumb.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 16:34:11 See? You decided to read the rest of the statute, not the applicable one, and found a NEW reason to pull him over. So how easy do you think it is for a cop who tails someone for several minutes?
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 16:34:43 HOLY SHIT!! Forseb, did you just really say that only one part of a statute matters and the rest of any subsections do not attach itself to it? What a fucking douche!
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 16:35:21 Trolly, are you really saying that a cop can pull someone over for any reason they want and just find new justifications later? What a fucking tard!
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:36:41 LOL, because that how it works Forwyn. There has to be probable cause for a cop to pull someone over. If none of that statute existed, it is going to be hard to articulate why a cop pulled someone over. And that is why we have courts made that decision upon existing statutes. Versus your logic of "Cops make up laws."
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 16:38:07 No seriously, Forseb thinks that all those other words under the title of the statute don't apply after the first section. LOL!!!!
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 16:39:42 Yes, and in this case, he was using probably cause of faulty lights. The problem, of course, being that Castile still met the legal requirements. The cop never once mentioned glare, that is your new invention.
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 16:39:49 This made me giggle, seriously, it made me giggle. Forseb, how in the world do you think that none of the other words to any law with it's subsection doesn't not apply. Did you even pay attention in criminal justice class? Did you go to college? You know they offered this in high school... fuck dude!
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 16:40:06 burned-out lights*
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:42:43 It isn't an invention. It is the law you cited, it is a law that shows how those lights can be malfunctioning in order for you to be pulled over. And its a fact in the video you see the right passenger light was 'glaring'. Are you expecting me to think, as anyone else, reasonably think a cop would robotically approach the motorist and go "according to such and such code, of 1234, sub 3, sect a, that such and such." Or go with the practical. "Hey I pulled you over because you have a brake light out." Seriously, forwyn. Seriously. You're better than this.
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 16:43:03 Not really. Forseb is pretty dumb.
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 16:44:18 I just can't get over the fact that Forseb thinks all the other words attached to a statute doesn't apply.
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 16:44:37 Yeah, that is pretty embarrassing.
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 16:46:17 Honestly I don't know what is more embarrassing. Forseb posting laws to support his position, but failed to read and understanding them. OR just being Forseb
Trolly McDick Member	Thu Jun 22 16:47:06 I just read that Forseb doesn't understand how to read laws and how they are applicable. Forseb is so dumb.
delude Member	Thu Jun 22 16:48:15 "but, but he had the number of lights!"
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 16:49:41 Yeah, he had the number of lights requirement. They are there. Problem is they have a maintenance issue. But Forseb logic contradicts.
Trolly McAwesome Member	Thu Jun 22 16:51:14 Forseb should just give it up and lick his wounds, I mean this is embarrassing. How in the world do you not think that other parts of a statute or law with all its sections and subsections are not utilized by cops, courts, or the DA? I mean...I am seriously floored by this.
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 16:51:53 I am forsebbed!
Trolly McDick Member	Thu Jun 22 16:52:09 Forsebbed, indeed.
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 16:52:22 Indeed.
Trolly McDick Member	Thu Jun 22 16:58:12 I think delube should apologize to Forseb, because he obviously has a developmental disability.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 16:58:51 Honestly delude, I'm pretty astounded at your stupidity here. Yes, you found a new clause to hunker down on. There was a glare. BUT THAT'S NOT WHY CASTILE WAS PULLED OVER. He was pulled over because a bulb was out. Does the statute still apply while driving? Of course, Trolly-squad, but not to this discussion, because you're bringing up a second infraction that the officer never brought up. As said previously, a cop can and will find a reason to pull someone over if they want to. For instance, Castile had been pulled over 52 times prior to this.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 17:01:10 2 hours after discussion starts: "What about this glare clause?" Me: "Yeah, but that's not why the cop said he was being pulled over." Downie tardsquad: "ARE YOU SAYING IT DOESN'T APPLY? REEEEEEEEEE"
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 17:18:03 You cite a law that you didnt comprehend, then applied a another state law that was different than the origin state. Argued that it can be applied to that stated. The continue the failed logic that cops cant pull over anyone, they have to invent a reason to do so. While it clearly states in the law the applicable reasons how a person is violating said law that establishes probable cause, thus in your continuance of feeblemindedness argue that castile met the two loght requirement so that the cop didnt have the legal right to stop him, then go on to refuse the concept the concepr he pulled him over for the specific statute, and in that specific statute it clearly gives reasons and how the officer was justified for the stop. And you want to call me stupid? Dipshit, you have contradicted yourself, lied, and used false pretenses to support your positions. Failed. And then continued. Just quit while youre not ahead.
Trolly Member	Thu Jun 22 17:36:23 It's safe to say that Forseb is retarded.
Trolly McSerious Member	Thu Jun 22 17:45:51 I am late to the party. But it is true. Mr. Forseb only took part of the law and applied it while ignore other aspects of the law. He wanted to make his argument that Castile was in the legal right because all lights were working. Because there were two, and since there was two, as stated in the law, the two lights that, forseb was mesmerized with stuck with that concept and used it as the cops didn't have any reason to pull them over. Then incorrectly claimed they had to invent a reason because of the other 'clauses' in the law. Forseb, it doesn't work like that. Laws are created and there are sections added, or amended that may include. Reasons being the change in the climate of the community, area, state, based upon case laws, or reactive measures. Laws evolved. In this case, the law evolved to include these other subsections that can be applied. And since we have Law Enforcement to enforce these laws. I believe it is safe to say that in this case they utilized that specific statute in it's entirety to make the stop. And justified the stop more so by explaining it. Now maybe in forseb's world the cop should have broken out a law book and read everything verbatim or use every jargon. Or make a summation. "Hey I pulled you over for a broken taillight." "Hey I pulled you over for a malfunctioning taillight." "Hey I pulled you over for a faulty taillight." The English language is wondering. Words are wonderful. You can use many different phrases and words to convey the same meaning. But in forseb's world, that isn't enough. In Forseb's world, cops must invent, or make up new laws on the spot to find ways of screwing the citizen over. In forseb's world, he has to make falsities in order to get his point across where it is counter-productive, and wrong. In Forseb's world, he forgoes all reasoning and logic and still can't admit that he has been wrong the entire time. Forseb, you are a sad, sad little person.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 17:50:09 No, I cited a law with numerical requirements. Then I cited a ruling of a law with numerical requirements, that, while from a separate jurisdiction, could absolutely be used as a defense. You spent a good deal of time straw-manning that I was implying NC law was relevant to Minn, rather than the court precedent itself. Then, I stated - and this isn't even hotly debated outside of UP - that a cop can find virtually any reason to pull you over. You decided to use this as a strawman, taking it quite literally, to the point that a cop could pull you over for not liking your face. No, but it goes without saying that between the over-legislation of criminality and infractions, and the face-value given to cop testimonies in court (I estimate 1.5 car lengths between the car and the semi - ergo 1.5 car lengths is fact), that a cop can find a reason to pull over 100% of drivers on the road. Then, in the second thread on the matter, after your maintenance tangent failed - because this was covered by precedent, the reason I linked it in the first place - you decided to bring up glare, because you saw it in the video. I stated that this wasn't the reason the cop said he was pulling over Castile, so while it's not really relevant to this specific incident, it adds yet another reason for cops to pull you over. Number 53 for Castile, totally unremarkable if not for the panicky cop. Enter another strawman, this time propagated by the Troll-squad, but gladly bandwagoned by you. Because I said it doesn't really apply here, but clearly could have, I'm implying the law itself isn't relevant ever. REEEEEE Yes, I want to call you stupid. You've diverted and created new reasonings at every point of this discussion. You've strawmanned virtually every statement I've made, to the point where I can't even say that Castile's admission to being a CC means he is less likely to commit a violent offense against the officer, without you posting youtube searches implying that I said ambushes against officers never occur. Congratulations, Seb.
Delude Member	Thu Jun 22 21:54:18 I know that you like to claim victory and think that you had your argument sound. But let's look back at what you did initially is that you cited two different laws and claim they are the same from two different states. You emphatically stated what your argument was in the reasoning as why you sighted them you clearly stated that these laws apply to each other but they do not. One was in North Carolina law the other was a Minnesota law. You continued to mistakenly state that this one section of the Minnesota law only applies to the situation as to why the motorist was pulled over. And you were incorrect with that because you were arguing that the cop didn't have a legal right to pull this person over. You stated that. Unless you're having some delusions of grandeur and you have piss poor memory that was your claim. You argued in this thread asking a question that are you inventing something did the officer state that he was being pulled over because of brake lights which from the first thread that was what I claimed the officer emphatically stated hey I pulled you over because of your brake lights being out. Just like you did in the first thread you decide to omit and ignore the rest of the law that you initially cited. You embarrass yourself because you got caught by using false pretenses and other bullshit distractions to enforce a point that made no sense because you're contradicting yourself. Now it isn't my fault that you cannot grasp onto the concept that you you were contradicting yourself ill just blaming on your stupidity. The point is as you attempted to argue against it wrongly he was pulled over because it was brake light based upon that Minnesota law that has all that text to support the reason why the officer pulled him over. Because he had a broken taillight he described it to him which ones they were and guess what was in that description in that law was that hey it's a maintenance issue hey you have one light that is glaring you can see that it is glaring. But you as a dumbass goes we'll go through doing specifically state it was glaring. The officer isn't going to waste time going hey you're brake light is glaring they're going to say a more Simple Thing hey your brake lights are not working or hey your brake lights are out or they're broken. You had the troll Squad point this out you had another poster John Adams Point this out period yet you still continue to argue that the officer had no legal right to pull over this guy. Then you make this outrageous claim that cops can pull someone over for driving to correctly then you cite what you're talking about per request and you don't provide the entire details of that case and come to find out that they were pulled over because they were following too closely that is a violation of a traffic law. Which is probable cause to pull someone over period but you claimed they were pulled over for driving too correctly. Guess what you were wrong. So americanseb, it isnt my fault you are incapable of realizing your errors. And really it is pointless to keep showing you as you live in this shell. Your hatred of cops quite apparent which completely interferes with you making a rational comment or thought.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 22 23:48:04 Cop's actual spiel: "The reason I pulled you over is, your brake lights are out, you only have one active brake light. That's your passenger side one. Your third brake light which is up here on top, and then this one back here, that's going to be out. You have your license and insurance?" Passenger side is the one with the glare, the one he says is working. He clearly pulled over Castile for having brake lights OUT. He says this. You're inventing other reasons to justify the stop. And here, for good measure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd7zW4aRlYE At :27, you can see AT LEAST TWO light go off when he puts the car in park. "One was in North Carolina law the other was a Minnesota law." I have explained this multiple times to you, it's not my fault you're a fucking retard - precedent is separate from legislative law. Any judge worth his bench would correlate the numerical lamp requirement, the maintenance/good working order clauses, and the details of the stop. "yet you still continue to argue that the officer had no legal right to pull over this guy." No, I freely admitted that JA's point was sound, and yes, all of this discussion of the law is totally irrelevant, because as long as the cop can say there was a violation, even if there wasn't, he has probably cause for a stop. "come to find out that they were pulled over because they were following too closely that is a violation of a traffic law. Which is probable cause to pull someone over period but you claimed they were pulled over for driving too correctly. Guess what you were wrong." Idiot. Fact 1) Cop started following the couple because one was white, one was black, they were both looking ahead, and the driver had both hands on the wheel. Fact 2) After following for several minutes, officer pulled them over based on an estimate of following distance. He found a reason. Fact 3) The court ruled that the officer can pull someone over based on a simple violation even though his intent is to investigate something totally different. I know nuance is hard for you, but by combining these three facts, we realize quickly, and neither the cop nor the court made any attempt to deny this - the cop was specifically looking for a reason to pull them over, found it, and used it to check for a bunch of other shit. So, yeah. I agreed with you, and said cops can pull someone over, Castile included, for just about any reason they want. You got butthurt about that, for God knows what reason. Because you specifically want it to be about the light? Yeah, he can pull him over for the light. But again, the ticket wouldn't stick. A ticket for a glare? Probably. But not for the light being OUT - which is what the cop said - that he only had one light active - we see two brake lights active. But your invention of reasons isn't surprising at this point, you think that a CCW who admits freely to the cop that he has a weapon is an imminent Chris Dorner, so you will find any excuse you can to justify them killing an innocent man.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 23 02:28:28 A night of sleep and I have no idea wtf is going on here anymore.
Delude Member	Fri Jun 23 08:10:36 Warning: If you ever get a ticket for a non-moving or moving violation, just pay the fine. Do not let Forwyn represent you. You both will end up in jail. Let’s talk about some of the discrepancies you have - notably 1) You are hung up on the notion that all lights are working, or at least two. MN law that Forwyn cited in first thread: “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…”] The law continues to state in conjunction; Subd. 3.Maintenance. (a) When a vehicle is equipped with stop lamps or signal lamps, [SUCH LAMPS SHALL BE AT ALL TIMES BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION.] (b) [NO STOP LAMPS OR SIGNAL MAP SHALL PROJECT A GLARING OR DAZZLING LIGHT] This is where you keep getting stuck at. Now I am going to start blaming your genes. I have a feeling that you do not come from good stock, you have struggled in school all your life and just in life in general, because you cannot understand the most basic of concepts. Forwyn’s brain: “See, see, two lights go off, therefore he isn’t violating the law.” Other statements by you supporting this is not a legal stop and/or is violating the law: 1. “A single bulb was burned out. The Rest are still working.” –Forwyn’s inference this was not a legal stop. 2. “And here is the relevant law” –Forwyn citing two laws from different states that states opposite of each other. 3. “ I have provided the relevant law and court precedent, It’s not my fault you think that these can be just suspended on an officer’s whim.” – Forwyn’s argument supporting continuing the notion this was not a legal stop. 4. “…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-function…” –Forwyn still arguing this was not a legal stop. 5. “Law is completely irrelevant.” –Forwyn put in his place after being shown that the stop was legal and attempted to dismiss the notion 6. “Even if the cops get a reason to pull Castile over, he wouldn’t have even gotten a citation that would stick.” –Forwyn’s continuance that this was not a legal stop. And incorrectly thinks Castile would not have gotten a ticket for violating the law. 7. “Based on proper legal understanding, yes they would have no legal right to stop.” –Forwyn again arguing this was not a legal stop and displays complete misunderstanding of the MN law. 8. “Nope. He had functioning lights.” –Forwyn’s continued stance this was not a legal stop. I count 8 instances out of many others of you’ve incorrectly made the argument that cops did not have the legal right to pull Castile over based upon MN Law. Few things: One, it has already been determined it was a legal to pull Castile over because of the brake lights. Two, you still cannot grasp the concept that all of that statute is in conjunction because of subsections, subsets, or in their terminology ‘subdivision’. That the operations of Castile’s brake lights did violate the MN Statute 169.57 – this has been demonstrated and examples provided numerous times. Yet you still continue to deny and claim Castile did not violate that law. More simply, you’ve been wrong and proven wrong. Which leads me to; 2) “Cops can pull you over for any reason.” – Forwyn making the declarative that cops ‘invent’ reasons to pull people over, without knowledge of the law. Your stance on that cops can pull you over for any reason is false. It has been established by the courts that cops must have PROBABLE CAUSE to pull someone over. I am not sure if you fully understand how probable cause works, but cops cannot go to a motorist who was following the law and just pull them over randomly. That would not hold in court, that would not be a legal stop. Yet you made this outrageous claim: “Courts have ruled that drivers can be pulled over for driving too correctly – straight posture, 10-2 hands on wheel, because it’s suspicious.” -Forwyn using false pretenses to demonstrate ‘cops can pull you over for any reason’. In reality they were pulled over for a traffic violation, for following too closely to another vehicle. That would be probable cause to pull someone over - versus your inference that cops can pull anyone over randomly for any reason whatsoever regardless of the law. Now you are arguing, instead of “too correctly”, that in this other incident the cop followed the couple because one was white and one was black. They were both looking ahead and the driver had hands on both wheel. You support this argument with this; “The court ruled that the officer can pull someone over based on a simple violation even though his intent is to investigate something different.” I am failing to see the issue with this. You are taking the stance that cops should not investigate suspicious activity, provided with articulation. So what exactly is wrong with this stop? You’ve admitted there was a violation, therefore probable cause to make the stop. Thus during the stop allowing the officer to investigate further to ensure there wasn’t any illegal activity occurring. This is a far cry from your earlier statement; “Cops can pull you over for any reason.” Do you not see how you’ve been contradicting yourself? So, I guess this is progress for you; so now instead of stating any reason, now you agree that is probable cause because a violation did occur. Which goes back to Castile’s situation, because he was violating a MN statute, so probable cause was established to pull him over, something you are still arguing that it was not a legal stop. Except, once again you’re wrong as addressed in point 1. So let’s try an experiment, Forwyn; 1. Go to your vehicle and remove the cover lens from your car, exposing the lights. Or crack them or break them. Leave like that. 2. For the next few days or weeks drive around, in fact, drive around more where there is heavy police presence. Just do it for days or weeks. 3. When you do get pulled over, try to recall or better yet record the entire interaction between you and the cop. I want to know the result and what dialogue occurs between you two. Chances are the cop will most likely say, synonymously that “Sir, you have a brake light out.” Or “Sir, did you know you have a broken tail light.” Or “Sir, your brake lights are not working.” It can be any combination in the English language to simply explain that your brake lights are not working properly in some sort of fashion. BUT Forwyn’s brain: “But both my lights are working.” You tell me how that exchange goes and how it works out for you buddy. Also try to wrap your brain around this. During your lifetime experience how many times have you seen another person with their vehicle use red tape, amber/yellow tape, or white tape to cover their tail lights. Ask yourself, why would someone do this? In fact, take the time in your own state and pull up your statute, and I am going to presume you’re in North Carolina. Read it…IN ITS ENTIRETY, because the whole statute applies. Then go back to Castile’s initial stop – Which part did he violate the MN Law? Straight answer, spare me your bullshit circumventions, as there isn’t any. Also to help you with your journey, here are some examples of broken tail lights; http://www...#tbm=isch&q=broken+tail+lights Lastly, towards the end you’ve admitted, then retracted, then argued against, and have the audacity to say that I’ve been wrong and cannot comprehend. Guy, as I’ve said previously, you have been wrong on every account and stance you’ve made the entire time. By using two laws that conflicted each other, but using a court precedent that wouldn’t even apply to the MN incident, due to the fact that that driver was violating the statute. By using a false pretense asserted by you and making an outrageous claim that court has ruled about being “too correct.” Honestly, you’re the one with the problem…not me. Lastly one more once, I stated in the first thread, that is sad the guy lost his life, but I can understand the reasonableness by the officer as to why he feared for his safety/or life in that instance. And this is because of combination of past experiences that have occurred to officers. This is by no means saying cops should have carte blanche, as you like to infer and always do when it comes to cops reactions, because you have always held a stance of bias and hatred towards cops. But to pretend that no criminal or people have done anything elaborate to ambush or take a chance to kill a cop by whatever ruse, artifice or blatancy, suggests to me how out of touch you really are. Done with you, you’re dismissed. Hope the troll squad annoys the piss out of you.
Forwyn Member	Fri Jun 23 08:15:22 Poor Delude, his entire rant outdone by what the cop actually said: "The reason I pulled you over is, your brake lights are out, you only have one active brake light. That's your passenger side one. Your third brake light which is up here on top, and then this one back here, that's going to be out. You have your license and insurance?"
Forwyn Member	Fri Jun 23 08:17:36 B-b-but muh cop bias! A man is dead, and I can't criticize the cowardly shooter or I risk offending all cops. Fuck yourself, kid.
Trolly McAwesome Member	Sat Jun 24 05:33:17 "Hope the troll squad annoys the piss out of you. " Not too much to say. Forseb is pretty dumb and is retarded. He danced around, took things out of context, made fallacies repeatedly, and pretty much ignore every fact and display his hypocrisy. I mean that is enough embarrassment for anyone to endure. May have to give him a break.
TJ Member	Sat Jun 24 11:00:31 A needless tragedy that I find fault in the officer and the driver, but at the end of the day the driver should have kept his hands in clear view, especially after telling the officer he had a weapon in the car. Both wanted to go home at night and only one managed to do even though I believe the officers directives were somewhat ambiguous and late from my perspective after receiving the knowledge of a weapon involved. Seconds between life and death leaves no room for evaluating sincerity. I would have ruled the same as the final judgment even though I would have preferred the officer having actual sight of a weapon barrel moving in his direction before firing his weapon. If the driver had had what I believe to be sufficient firearms training he would be alive today.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: