Thanks BLM

[GMDino]

(08-08-2016, 03:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, yes.  I'm a little surprised at Fred for not actually telling you guys the truth.  If you are pulled over for a citationable offense you are required to sign the citation, which is not an admission of guilt, merely an acknowledgement that you have been cited to court.  This is legal proof that you are aware of this date and will be held responsible for failing to appear.  If you refuse to sign you can, legally, be detained until you are brought before the court.  Additionally, obstructing, harassing or delaying an LEO is a misdemeanor offense, in CA it's 148(a)(1) PC.  Any LEO who witnesses a misdemeanor take place is lawfully obligated to detain that person, they have no discretion in this regard.  As Fred points out, we didn't see the whole scenario, but if he warned her several times that her failure to comply put her at risk of detention for obstruction then he did absolutely nothing wrong.  Technically a warning isn't even required although it is almost always given. 


I'm actually disturbed that a member of the bar isn't aware of these facts.  I'm equally disturbed that anyone would defend this clearly out of control woman.  Apparently that's how far the termites have spread.

In CA. Not every state requires you to sign.

I imagine some drives get pretty shitty about it though so maybe that's why there's a difference?  Just to avoid any kind of confrontations if they refuse?

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-08-2016, 05:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: In CA. Not every state requires you to sign.

I imagine some drives get pretty shitty about it though so maybe that's why there's a difference?  Just to avoid any kind of confrontations if they refuse?

Pretty sure every state makes you have a drivers license if you drive a car on a public road. And im pretty sure every state has a law about obstructing police.

How do you write someone a ticket who doesnt have an ID? And what good is a second opinion of an officer on a traffic stop that didnt see the traffic violation?

Easily avoidable situation. The cop has a job to do. Someone crossing over double lines is a danger. Have the tiniest amount of respect and behave with just a hint of common sense. And you will be on your way in no time. Really really simple stuff.


As quick as this lady was to pull out her phone I would bet money she was doing something with her phone that caused her to go out of her lane. And she adamantly denies it because she didnt have her eyes on the road and didnt realize she even did it.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2016, 07:18 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Pretty sure every state makes you have a drivers license if you drive a car on a public road. And im pretty sure every state has a law about obstructing police.

How do you write someone a ticket who doesnt have an ID? And what good is a second opinion of an officer on a traffic stop that didnt see the traffic violation?

Easily avoidable situation. The cop has a job to do. Someone crossing over double lines is a danger. Have the tiniest amount of respect and behave with just a hint of common sense. And you will be on your way in no time. Really really simple stuff.


As quick as this lady was to pull out her phone I would bet money she was doing something with her phone that caused her to go out of her lane. And she adamantly denies it because she didnt have her eyes on the road and didnt realize she even did it.

Apparently there are states that just take your word for it when they ask you to produce a license for the piece of equipment you are operating incorrectly. Also they just take your word for who you are and if you don't follow their instructions you can just go about your business with a citation issued to "occupant". 

[Bmoreblitz]

(08-08-2016, 12:32 PM)Nbfine32 Wrote: So if she fails to provide identification and a license to operate the vehicle. Officer blitz gives her a ticket, lets her continue to operate the vehicle and hop she comes to court?
What if she won't accept the ticket.

At want point do you feel an officer is justified to place someone under control that is failing to follow their instructions?

https://www.quora.com/If-you-are-pulled-over-by-a-police-officer-what-is-the-minimum-required-level-of-compliance

In most states yes. However, the lone star state does not require you to provide license or ID. I didn't see him trying to give a citation. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

What happened here Fred.  Mask slip a bit more than intended?

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 08:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:



What happened here Fred.  Mask slip a bit more than intended?

Yep, but I still did not see this woman refuse to provide a drivers license or identification.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2016, 08:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yep, but I still did not see this woman refuse to provide a drivers license or identification.

What exactly would that look like?

I have no doubt that there are LEOs out there that step over the line, but every time a video such as this is shown and there are those that try to paint to LEO as doing something wrong; it lessens the effect of when one actually does something wrong.

I listened to the audio this time, Before the officer had done anything other than pull her over, she said he had harassed her. She defied law by saying she is not going to jail and she said he was getting ready to taz her when he was not. I doubt she knew it was being video taped, because if you listen to the 911 call it doesn't reflect what was actually going on.

But there will be those that continue to fuel the divide by suggesting this LEO did something wrong and the person that broke the law did not. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2016, 08:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:



What happened here Fred.  Mask slip a bit more than intended?

Seems a lawyer would know such things. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2016, 08:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yep, but I still did not see this woman refuse to provide a drivers license or identification.

By your own admission we didn't see the whole incident.  That explanation cuts both ways.  Odd that you would make a post with such glaring legal inaccuracies only to have the post subsequently disappear in its entirety.  Things that make you hmmm.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2016, 08:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems a lawyer would know such things. 

You would think.  You'd also hope they would know enough about the law not to make a post with points that are completely inaccurate.  Not all of them, but the mistakes he made are entry level law school issues.  Curious.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2016, 07:56 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: In most states yes. However, the lone star state does not require you to provide license or ID. I didn't see him trying to give a citation. 

Well I did find this:
https://www.texaslawshield.com/when-you-must-id-in-texas/

Quote:However, we should note that certain activities in Texas are considered “privileges,” not “rights,” under Texas law. When you’re engaged in one of these “privileges,” you lose the ability to refuse to ID yourself. That’s because the law says you must present a license proving that you are allowed to engage in the “privileged” activity; because if you are unlicensed, you would be committing a crime! For example, if you’re driving a car and a peace officer lawfully detains you, you must present your Driver’s License to him to avoid being arrested; if you don’t, there is no proof to that officer you aren’t driving without a license.

[*michaelsean*]

Just stay in the car unless instructed otherwise, and you absolutely have to produce your drivers license when pulled over. This isn't a random request for ID on the street. It's a DRIVERS LICENSE and you are DRIVING.

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-08-2016, 11:23 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just stay in the car unless instructed otherwise, and you absolutely have to produce your drivers license when pulled over.  This isn't a random request for ID on the street.  It's a DRIVERS LICENSE and you are DRIVING.

Whoa whoa! WHOA !!!
Slow it down a little. You cant expect people to learn rocket science that fast.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2016, 11:23 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just stay in the car unless instructed otherwise, and you absolutely have to produce your drivers license when pulled over.  This isn't a random request for ID on the street.  It's a DRIVERS LICENSE and you are DRIVING.

Wut!!! You should jump out of the car, ask the Officer WTF is he pulling you over, pull out your cell phone, tell 911 that the Officer is harassing you, and refuse his instruction.  

[GMDino]

(08-08-2016, 07:18 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Pretty sure every state makes you have a drivers license if you drive a car on a public road. And im pretty sure every state has a law about obstructing police.

How do you write someone a ticket who doesnt have an ID? And what good is a second opinion of an officer on a traffic stop that didnt see the traffic violation?

Easily avoidable situation. The cop has a job to do. Someone crossing over double lines is a danger. Have the tiniest amount of respect and behave with just a hint of common sense. And you will be on your way in no time. Really really simple stuff.


As quick as this lady was to pull out her phone I would bet money she was doing something with her phone that caused her to go out of her lane. And she adamantly denies it because she didnt have her eyes on the road and didnt realize she even did it.

I was just referring to the signing of the ticket.

However that last paragraph has a lot of assumptions in it.

[GMDino]

I think most of us agree the best thing to do is be polite and do what you are told.  I believe there is some question as to what is legally required for you to do though.  And it seems it may vary from state to state for some things.

Also the level of snark in these responses is pretty high...doesn't seem like a way to have a conversation but rather to just insult others. 

I'm not surprised by it, or by the people doing it, but since those same people often feel "victimized" and "ganged up on" perhaps there's a bit of hypocrisy there.

Also not surprised b that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2016, 12:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: I was just referring to the signing of the ticket.

However that last paragraph has a lot of assumptions in it.

You would know, assumptions being your stock and trade.  At least you haven't fallen to making bad posts and then asking them to be immediately deleted like your compatriot.  Thank whatever for small favors.

[GMDino]

(08-09-2016, 12:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You would know, assumptions being your stock and trade.  At least you haven't fallen to making bad posts and then asking them to be immediately deleted like your compatriot.  Thank whatever for small favors.

Howdy! 

Glad you found another one of my posts to say something about what you think of me!  And to attack another board member I didn't even mention!  Kudos!

It does nothing to forward the conversation but I hope it brightens your day!

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 09:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: By your own admission we didn't see the whole incident.  That explanation cuts both ways.  Odd that you would make a post with such glaring legal inaccuracies only to have the post subsequently disappear in its entirety.  Things that make you hmmm.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong.


Unlike some people who say things that are obviously wrong but either double down or post obtuse comments like "Talking to yourself?"  As I have said over and over again the problem with the bad police officers out there is that when they find out they make a mistake they refuse to admit it.  they would rather have an innocent person convicted than admit they made a mistake.

If you want to find out which police officers are liars and which tell the truth just ask them if they have ever arrested an innocent person.  The ones who claim it is impossible for them to ever arrest an innocent person are the liars who give all police a bad name..

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2016, 09:13 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have no problem admitting when I am wrong.

Which explains why you made a post riddled with errors a law student wouldn't make and then deleted it completely.  You got caught otherwise you'd have never acknowledged it.   Why the complete fabrications?  Why the outright lies?  How could you make such basic errors if you are, in fact, an actual lawyer?

Quote:If you want to find out which police officers are liars and which tell the truth just ask them if they have ever arrested an innocent person.  The ones who claim it is impossible for them to ever arrest an innocent person are the liars who give all police a bad name..

Innocent people get arrested all the time.  Legally innocent people get arrested for crimes they actually committed but the DA doesn't feel they have enough to charge the person, and secure a conviction, in court.  Factually innocent people get arrested when accused by others of a crime they did not commit.  Factually innocent people get arrested when a sizable amount of circumstantial evidence points towards their guilt.  That's when the DA, again, gets involved.

As someone who claims to be a lawyer you should be aware that the entire criminal justice system is comprised of checks and balances.  Being arrested does not mean guilt and every LEO knows this.  There are several steps in the process and it takes every step of that process making a mistake to wrongly convict an innocent person.  This sadly happens, but it doesn't happen that often and it doesn't just happen because of a bad apple LEO.  You want to absolve your supposed profession from any culpability in this process when, in actuality, lawyers have equal, if not more, influence in the process than LEO's.


Now, kindly explain to the class how a lawyer could make such basic errors concerning the law.  I'm literally on shpilkes.