US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1836

On April 11 2015 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:


Good lord... It's not a tail light, it's a brake light. SC requires your vehicle has 1 count it 1 working brake light. The officer admits he pulled him over for a non functioning '3rd tail light', it's clearly bullshit.

On April 11 2015 06:38 wei2coolman wrote:

broken taillight isn't enforceable or warnable?I know you guys want to play the bleeding heart social liberals, but plz.

On April 11 2015 06:43 wei2coolman wrote:

Pulling over someone for a nonfunctioning 3rd tail light is not bullshit. rofl lmao.
even if there's no ticket enforceable, I've been in cars that have been pulled over just for basic warnings without the ticket. Driven by WHITE PEOPLE.

On April 11 2015 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:


What the hell does that have to do with anything? So you think cops can just pull people over for whatever they want? "Hey, I pulled you over because I noticed your hubcap was broken, I need to see your license and registration, also I need your passenger to step out of the vehicle so I can pat him down"...This is just ridiculous.

The Court of Appeals's interpretation of § 56-5-4730 requiring that only a single stop lamp be in good working condition overlooks the “when a vehicle is equipped” phrase which refers back to the first sentence of the statute providing for both mandatory and discretionary stop lamps. We hold, under a plain reading of § 56-5-4730, it is unlawful to drive with a non-functioning brake light. Accordingly, the traffic stop in this case was valid. The Court of Appeals's decision is
REVERSED.

On April 11 2015 06:47 wei2coolman wrote:

okay, i don't think you guys are understanding what i'm saying.
getting pulled over for a non 3rd working tail/brake light is not "weird" or "out of the ordinary". Now whether or not he could write a ticket for that is a separate issue over whether or not the pulling over was "for no reason".

On April 11 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:

i pulled that case up in Westlaw. it has been reversed by the Supreme Court. 347 S.C. 12 (2001)

On April 11 2015 06:47 wei2coolman wrote:

okay, i don't think you guys are understanding what i'm saying.
getting pulled over for a non 3rd working tail/brake light is not "weird" or "out of the ordinary". Now whether or not he could write a ticket for that is a separate issue over whether or not the pulling over was "for no reason".

On April 11 2015 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:


You're not making any sense. The fact that cops regularly pull people over for no legitimate reason doesn't make doing it less wrong? Also some states may have laws requiring all of a vehicles stock lights be fully functioning, SC is not one of those states. Regardless it's obvious it doesn't really have shit to do with safety, it's just a reason to be able to pull people over so police can get over the initial probable cause hurdle.

On April 11 2015 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:


You're not making any sense. The fact that cops regularly pull people over for no legitimate reason doesn't make doing it less wrong? Also some states may have laws requiring all of a vehicles stock lights be fully functioning, SC is not one of those states. Regardless it's obvious it doesn't really have shit to do with safety, it's just a reason to be able to pull people over so police can get over the initial probable cause hurdle.



Regardless it's obvious it doesn't really have shit to do with safety, it's just a reason to be able to pull people over so police can get over the initial probable cause hurdle.

On April 11 2015 06:52 wei2coolman wrote:

except pulling someone over for something wrong with their vehicle (meeting minimal legal requirement or not) is not "weird".

it would be like if I walked up to someone in highschool, and poked their shoulders to let them know that their backpack zippers are open.

On April 11 2015 06:52 wei2coolman wrote:

except pulling someone over for something wrong with their vehicle (meeting minimal legal requirement or not) is not "weird".

it would be like if I walked up to someone in highschool, and poked their shoulders to let them know that their backpack zippers are open.

yeah, broken taillights are totally not a street safety hazard, nope, not at all.

On April 11 2015 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:


You're not making any sense. The fact that cops regularly pull people over for no legitimate reason doesn't make doing it less wrong? Also some states may have laws requiring all of a vehicles stock lights be fully functioning, SC is not one of those states. Regardless it's obvious it doesn't really have shit to do with safety, it's just a reason to be able to pull people over so police can get over the initial probable cause hurdle.



Regardless it's obvious it doesn't really have shit to do with safety, it's just a reason to be able to pull people over so police can get over the initial probable cause hurdle.

On April 11 2015 06:53 GreenHorizons wrote:


Except there is actually a problem with an unzipped backpack, there is no reason to need 3 brake lights at all.

Effective with the 1986 model year, the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Transport Canada mandated that all new passenger cars come equipped with a CHMSL. . Early studies involving taxicabs and other fleet vehicles found that a third, high-level stop lamp reduced rear-end collisions by about 50%. Once the novelty effect wore off as most vehicles on the road came to be equipped with the central third stop lamp, the crash-avoidance benefit declined. However, it did not decline to zero, and a CHMSL is so inexpensive to incorporate into a vehicle that it is a cost-effective collision avoidance feature even at the long-term enduring crash-reduction benefit of 4.3%.[83]

On April 11 2015 06:52 wei2coolman wrote:

except pulling someone over for something wrong with their vehicle (meeting minimal legal requirement or not) is not "weird".

it would be like if I walked up to someone in highschool, and poked their shoulders to let them know that their backpack zippers are open.

yeah, broken taillights are totally not a street safety hazard, nope, not at all.

On April 11 2015 06:54 dAPhREAk wrote:

if you are arguing that fix-it tickets are solely for probable cause, you are wrong. they are justifiable for traffic safety.

if you are arguing that fix-it tickets are commonly used by cops to pull people over to do further searches, i would not disagree with you.

On April 11 2015 06:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:


Think its more like telling them their zipper is open as an excuse to look inside of their backpack.

I'm white, I've been pulled over plenty of times for completely bullshit reasons. Cops like to go fishing. Odds are they're not pulling you over out of the goodness of their heart, they're busting your balls trying to find something bigger.

On April 11 2015 06:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:


Think its more like telling them their zipper is open as an excuse to look inside of their backpack.

I'm white, I've been pulled over plenty of times for completely bullshit reasons. Cops like to go fishing. Odds are they're not pulling you over out of the goodness of their heart, they're busting your balls trying to find something bigger.



This

The Oakland Police Department has been so ineffectively structured that only one part-time investigator was assigned to handle 10,000 reported burglaries last year, a stunning deficiency revealed Thursday by police consultants hired by the city to develop a crime-fighting plan.

On April 11 2015 06:59 wei2coolman wrote:

this is true, and i'm saying it's not a race based thing. it's cops being cops.
I still think a lot of it falls on terrible training standard and poor recruitment standards for cops.

On April 11 2015 06:54 dAPhREAk wrote:

if you are arguing that fix-it tickets are solely for probable cause, you are wrong. they are justifiable for traffic safety.

if you are arguing that fix-it tickets are commonly used by cops to pull people over to do further searches, i would not disagree with you.

On April 11 2015 07:05 IgnE wrote:


Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a long time since I was writing briefs, but even if you can pull people over and ticket them for the broken light that doesn't necessarily give you license to search the rest of the vehicle absent further probable cause.

On April 11 2015 06:59 wei2coolman wrote:

this is true, and i'm saying it's not a race based thing. it's cops being cops.
I still think a lot of it falls on terrible training standard and poor recruitment standards for cops.

On April 11 2015 07:10 OuchyDathurts wrote:


Just because it isn't always a race based thing doesn't mean it CAN'T be race based.

Training and recruitment suck, but we have too many cops for the amount of actual crime. Writing tickets for some broken tail light bullshit isn't a noble or worthwhile job for people to be paying taxes. Arresting people for smoking a plant isn't helping anyone in society. We need fewer police doing bullshit busy work no one asked for, and the cops we keep around to be making the place safer by working on and solving actual crimes. But doling out tickets and catching that kid with a joint is easy fucking money baby!

On April 11 2015 07:05 IgnE wrote:


Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a long time since I was writing briefs, but even if you can pull people over and ticket them for the broken light that doesn't necessarily give you license to search the rest of the vehicle absent further probable cause.