Man stands up to system and wins.

[sangreporsangre]

Oh my gosh . . . and you think my point is stupid.


Whatever man . . . :icon_lol:

What exactly is so stupid about his post? I thought that was a pretty good analogy.

 

[spamking]

What exactly is so stupid about his post? I thought that was a pretty good analogy.

Really?

I guess the part where he tries to compare pulling over on a road at night to switch drivers versus pulling over at an actual lighted business and the likelihood of a police officer stopping to check on them to using a self checkout . . . the two situations are no where near the same.

I guess I'm just not getting why he has an issue with the point I was making. He hasn't negated it at all. He just thinks "it's a stupid point".

 

[BearGrounds]

Really?

I guess the part where he tries to compare pulling over on a road at night to switch drivers versus pulling over at an actual lighted business and the likelihood of a police officer stopping to check on them to using a self checkout . . . the two situations are no where near the same.

I guess I'm just not getting why he has an issue with the point I was making. He hasn't negated it at all. He just thinks "it's a stupid point".

I'm fairly certain what that poster took issue with, was your implication that the driver created the problem by pulling over on the side of the road and not at a rest stop. What you should be saying is that the police could've prevented all off this by NOT violating the man's rights. The police created the problem. That's what your focus should be on.

His analogy is a reflection of your viewpoint. In other words, what you're doing by blaming the driver for creating the problem, would be like someone blaming you for having an issue with a cashier for incorrect change because you CHOSE to use the checkout line instead of self checkout.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Really?

I guess the part where he tries to compare pulling over on a road at night to switch drivers versus pulling over at an actual lighted business and the likelihood of a police officer stopping to check on them to using a self checkout . . . the two situations are no where near the same.

I guess I'm just not getting why he has an issue with the point I was making. He hasn't negated it at all. He just thinks "it's a stupid point".

He's saying if the store fucked someone over by adding bogus charges to their grocery bill, would you harp on how they checked it out? No, you would probably say wow those people responsible at the grocery store are assholes and you shouldn't pay the extra charges. It's very similar to this case: it doesn't matter where they stopped to make the driver switch. If pulling over on the shoulder increased the likelihood of the cops noticing them and checking them out, that's fine. Nothing wrong with the cop coming over and seeing if they're all right. The real meat of the story here is the pig illegally opening the door of his vehicle and searching it, and then hitting him with 2 false citations. This is a disgusting abuse of power that should outrage any citizen of a free country. But you seem to be more focused on blaming the victim and criticizing where he pulled over and I find that to be pretty bizarre.

 

[spamking]

He's saying if the store fucked someone over by adding bogus charges to their grocery bill, would you harp on how they checked it out? No, you would probably say wow those people responsible at the grocery store are assholes and you shouldn't pay the extra charges.

Yeah, I agree with that . . .

It's very similar to this case: it doesn't matter where they stopped to make the driver switch.

I get that in your eyes it doesn't matter, but do you think they would've been bothered at all if this switch was done someplace not on the side of the road?

If pulling over on the shoulder increased the likelihood of the cops noticing them and checking them out, that's fine. Nothing wrong with the cop coming over and seeing if they're all right.

I'm saying it definitely did . . .

The real meat of the story here is the pig illegally opening the door of his vehicle and searching it, and then hitting him with 2 false citations. This is a disgusting abuse of power that should outrage any citizen of a free country.

Yes it is . . . I've never defended the cops.

But you seem to be more focused on blaming the victim and criticizing where he pulled over and I find that to be pretty bizarre.

If you don't think the poor decision of this couple to make the switch on the side of the road is ultimately responsible for what happened that's fine. I was just saying it could've been avoided had they switched in a different location. That's it.

Excuse me for not jumping on the bash a cop bandwagon . . . but that doesn't mean I'm defending them.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Yeah, I agree with that . . .



I get that in your eyes it doesn't matter, but do you think they would've been bothered at all if this switch was done someplace not on the side of the road?



I'm saying it definitely did . . .



Yes it is . . . I've never defended the cops.



If you don't think the poor decision of this couple to make the switch on the side of the road is ultimately responsible for what happened that's fine. I was just saying it could've been avoided had they switched in a different location. That's it.

Excuse me for not jumping on the bash a cop bandwagon . . . but that doesn't mean I'm defending them.

Lmao, which is why the analogy the other guy presented worked so well with your bizarre stance. We can hold any victim "ultimately responsible" for what happens to them if we want to do mental gymnastics like you are doing here. "She got raped last night? Well she's ultimately responsible for it, you saw the dress she was wearing!". Bottom line is, the cops weren't out of line for coming up on them and checking if they're ok. But there was no reason to open the door of his vehicle, and there was no reason for them to issue him false citations when he asserted his own constitutional rights. They are responsible for their actions, which were highly illegal and grossly unconstitutional.

 

[CubicleGangster]

He's saying if the store fucked someone over by adding bogus charges to their grocery bill, would you harp on how they checked it out? No, you would probably say wow those people responsible at the grocery store are assholes and you shouldn't pay the extra charges. It's very similar to this case: it doesn't matter where they stopped to make the driver switch. If pulling over on the shoulder increased the likelihood of the cops noticing them and checking them out, that's fine. Nothing wrong with the cop coming over and seeing if they're all right. The real meat of the story here is the pig illegally opening the door of his vehicle and searching it, and then hitting him with 2 false citations. This is a disgusting abuse of power that should outrage any citizen of a free country. But you seem to be more focused on blaming the victim and criticizing where he pulled over and I find that to be pretty bizarre.

Lmao, which is why the analogy the other guy presented worked so well with your bizarre stance. We can hold any victim "ultimately responsible" for what happens to them if we want to do mental gymnastics like you are doing here. "She got raped last night? Well she's ultimately responsible for it, you saw the dress she was wearing!". Bottom line is, the cops weren't out of line for coming up on them and checking if they're ok. But there was no reason to open the door of his vehicle, and there was no reason for them to issue him false citations when he asserted his own constitutional rights. They are responsible for their actions, which were highly illegal and grossly unconstitutional.

Thank you for putting it so well. I don't get the victim blaming point of view he has. Whether it was at the side of the road or a rest stop, the guy did nothing ILLEGAL. Therefor, the cops had no right to take it as far as they did.

 

[CubicleGangster]

I'd say I'm critiquing more than criticizing.

Not to excuse the officers here, but the guy started acting suspicious and pushing buttons on the cops and they responded in kind. Fortunately for him there was video to show that he was only a dumbass and not a criminal.

I hope the 2 days off work was worth it for him.

I have to disagree with that, he did everything that was well within his rights to do.

 

[spamking]

Lmao, which is why the analogy the other guy presented worked so well with your bizarre stance. We can hold any victim "ultimately responsible" for what happens to them if we want to do mental gymnastics like you are doing here. "She got raped last night? Well she's ultimately responsible for it, you saw the dress she was wearing!". Bottom line is, the cops weren't out of line for coming up on them and checking if they're ok. But there was no reason to open the door of his vehicle, and there was no reason for them to issue him false citations when he asserted his own constitutional rights. They are responsible for their actions, which were highly illegal and grossly unconstitutional.

You bring up rape in a case about an illegal search and I'm the one playing mental gymnastics . . . :icon_lol:

What is bizarre about anything I posted?

Is it bizarre to feel that switching drivers at a rest stop, gas station or other business is more appropriate than just pulling over on the side of the road to do it?

Fine . . . it's bizarre.

 

[spamking]

Thank you for putting it so well. I don't get the victim blaming point of view he has. Whether it was at the side of the road or a rest stop, the guy did nothing ILLEGAL. Therefor, the cops had no right to take it as far as they did.

Where did I say he did anything illegal?

Stupid maybe, but not illegal.

I'm not blaming the victim for the actions of the cops . . . I'm saying the stupid decision by the victim lead to an avoidable situation regardless of how the cops acted.

 

[BearGrounds]

You bring up rape in a case about an illegal search and I'm the one playing mental gymnastics . . . :icon_lol:

What is bizarre about anything I posted?

Is it bizarre to feel that switching drivers at a rest stop, gas station or other business is more appropriate than just pulling over on the side of the road to do it?

Fine . . . it's bizarre.

What's bizarre is that you found that, of all the things associated with this incident, to be the most questionable aspect of it.

And he brought up the "rape" thing as an extreme example of the very line of thinking you've been displaying in this thread since your initial post.

 

[Crocswithsocks]

I think both sides were wrong.

In his case, I think consistency must apply. Should his house catch on fire, the fire department should follow each and every rule. And I'm sure there's a lot of them. Etc. And I'd make sure local officials are aware of his stance toward following the rules. As there is absolutely no wiggle room.

In the officers case, they should be reprimanded.

 

[csroster]

You bring up rape in a case about an illegal search and I'm the one playing mental gymnastics . . . :icon_lol:

What is bizarre about anything I posted?

Is it bizarre to feel that switching drivers at a rest stop, gas station or other business is more appropriate than just pulling over on the side of the road to do it?

Fine . . . it's bizarre.

It does seem strange that you seem to be more interested in discussing the best place to pull over and switch drivers than unconstitutional searches being committed.

It seems like everyone agrees it'd be better to switch drivers at a rest stop and that the police had no right to search the guys car.

But what if there's no rest stop nearby? What if his wife caught herself falling asleep at the wheel, and they decided it was best to switch immediately? Is switching drivers on the shoulder a good reason to have cops violate your rights?

The obvious answer is no, so what does it matter if they switched drivers on the shoulder instead of a rest stop in the context of their rights being violated?

 

[spamking]

What's bizarre is that you found that, of all things associated with this incident, to be the most questionable aspect of it.

And he brought up the "rape" thing, as an extreme example of the very line of thinking you've been displaying in this thread since your initial post.

Got it. I'm extreme for questioning why someone would pick the side of the road, at night to switch drivers rather than a rest stop or business.

Just because I didn't jump on board with everyone else bashing the cops for their behavior doesn't mean I agreed with how they handled the situation. I wholeheartedly agree that both of the cops behaved like douchebags . . . .

 

[CubicleGangster]

Where did I say he did anything illegal?

Stupid maybe, but not illegal.

I'm not blaming the victim for the actions of the cops . . . I'm saying the stupid decision by the victim lead to an avoidable situation regardless of how the cops acted.

But it wasn't stupid, and you calling that decision stupid is unfair. The only basis for it being a stupid decision is how the cops acted in regard to it. The situation would of been avoidable if the cops did their job right.

 

[Crocswithsocks]

It seems like everyone agrees it'd be better to switch drivers at a rest stop and that the police had no right to search the guys car.

I'm not trying to rehash the thread, nor am I going to reread the entire thing. But was it the officers intent to search the car or simply talk to the guys wife? Has this already been hashed out? It might already be hashed out, but from the video I assumed he was just talking to the wife. I might be wrong though...

 

[csroster]

Where did I say he did anything illegal?

Stupid maybe, but not illegal.

I'm not blaming the victim for the actions of the cops . . . I'm saying the stupid decision by the victim lead to an avoidable situation regardless of how the cops acted.

Do you know why they wanted to switch drivers on the shoulder instead of a rest stop?

Maybe they had a good reason. If they had a really good reason to switch drivers right away on the shoulder (wife started falling asleep at the wheel, no rest stop for miles, etc..), would you be more willing to focus on the police violating their rights than why they didn't go to a rest stop?

 

[jackietreehorn8]

I'm only half joking when I say I think I'd rather live in a jackboot society than one filled with pain in the ass self-serious twats like he guy that made the video.

 

[BearGrounds]

Got it. I'm extreme for questioning why someone would pick the side of the road, at night to switch drivers rather than a rest stop or business.

Just because I didn't jump on board with everyone else bashing the cops for their behavior doesn't mean I agreed with how they handled the situation. I wholeheartedly agree that both of the cops behaved like douchebags . . . .

Obviously you don't "get it". Because I said it was an "extreme example" of your line of thinking, not that you're extreme. Reading comprehension.

 

[spamking]

It does seem strange that you seem to be more interested in discussing the best place to pull over and switch drivers than unconstitutional searches being committed.

Sorry . . .

It seems like everyone agrees it'd be better to switch drivers at a rest stop and that the police had no right to search the guys car.

Really? All I see is that I was being "stupid" for bothering to ask the question.

But what if there's no rest stop nearby? What if his wife caught herself falling asleep at the wheel, and they decided it was best to switch immediately?

I've done enough driving across the country to know that uncontrollable circumstances can lead to various situations that wouldn't be ideal.

Is switching drivers on the shoulder a good reason to have cops violate your rights?

The obvious answer is no, so what does it matter if they switched drivers on the shoulder instead of a rest stop in the context of their rights being violated?

For the umpteenth time . . . there is no good reason to have a cop violate your rights. All I was saying is that the likelihood of this happening is smaller at a rest stop than at on the side of the road. That's it.

Pardon me for diverting discussion away from the rights violatin' cops . . .