cop suspended after ticketing mayor’s son during checkpoint stop
10-27-09, 11:32 AM
#17
Lead Lap
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Deerfield Beach, FL
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go check your state legal codes. Driving is NOT a right. It is a priviledge. A cop, legally, can check for a license any time he or she feels it is warranted. It is YOUR responsibility, as a driver, to have a VALID license/registration and to produce them upon request. That is not hassling.
As for the Mayor, he probably owes the cop an apology.....and, IMO, a promotion to Sergeant. He also needs to sit down with his son and give him a good chewing out....in addition to the ticket.
As for the Mayor, he probably owes the cop an apology.....and, IMO, a promotion to Sergeant. He also needs to sit down with his son and give him a good chewing out....in addition to the ticket.
How is it not ludicrous to think that driving is a privilege granted to us by the govt when it is the people who invented and manufacture automobiles, the people who work to buy their automobiles, and the people who foot the bill to build roads?
There have also been several court cases stating that driving and traveling on public highways is a right so obviously the issue isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be.
And from my own experience, police can not pull you over for no reason, even if just to check ID. They still need reasonable suspicion.
10-27-09, 11:55 AM
#18
Well of course the government is going to say it is a privilege, how else can they maintain control of and tax it?
How is it not ludicrous to think that driving is a privilege granted to us by the govt when it is the people who invented and manufacture automobiles, the people who work to buy their automobiles, and the people who foot the bill to build roads?
There have also been several court cases stating that driving and traveling on public highways is a right so obviously the issue isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be.
And from my own experience, police can not pull you over for no reason, even if just to check ID. They still need reasonable suspicion.
How is it not ludicrous to think that driving is a privilege granted to us by the govt when it is the people who invented and manufacture automobiles, the people who work to buy their automobiles, and the people who foot the bill to build roads?
There have also been several court cases stating that driving and traveling on public highways is a right so obviously the issue isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be.
And from my own experience, police can not pull you over for no reason, even if just to check ID. They still need reasonable suspicion.
10-27-09, 12:19 PM
#19
Well of course the government is going to say it is a privilege, how else can they maintain control of and tax it?
How is it not ludicrous to think that driving is a privilege granted to us by the govt when it is the people who invented and manufacture automobiles, the people who work to buy their automobiles, and the people who foot the bill to build roads?
There have also been several court cases stating that driving and traveling on public highways is a right so obviously the issue isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be.
And from my own experience, police can not pull you over for no reason, even if just to check ID. They still need reasonable suspicion.
How is it not ludicrous to think that driving is a privilege granted to us by the govt when it is the people who invented and manufacture automobiles, the people who work to buy their automobiles, and the people who foot the bill to build roads?
There have also been several court cases stating that driving and traveling on public highways is a right so obviously the issue isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be.
And from my own experience, police can not pull you over for no reason, even if just to check ID. They still need reasonable suspicion.
Ultimately, it's the Law.
10-27-09, 12:32 PM
#21
Lead Lap
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Deerfield Beach, FL
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
10-27-09, 12:33 PM
#22
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is whining? I saw no one make a personal reference at all about being harassed or giving an anecdote about it.
You would rather the "mayor" be allowed to do whatever he wants to someone who was sworn to uphold a law and did so? What are we living in, a bad TV show from the early 80's??
He did his job. The law is very clear that drivers who are approaching a checkpoint and avoid it are subject to immediate stop and search. It's to prevent drunks from simply driving around them (provided, of course, they have the ability in their stupor).
What I fail to see is why you think the cop was, in this case and this case alone, trying to go outside of his duty to ticket the kid. The kid did something wrong (twice), and that merited the ticket. What the "mayor" did was egregiously wrong, and merits his termination by the city. I have a feeling that will be forthcoming now that this has hit the wires.
I have seen plenty of cases to the contrary - when driving privileges are revoked for a period of time.
Wait...there was logic in there? I musta missed that.
Big Mack
What I fail to see is why you think the cop was, in this case and this case alone, trying to go outside of his duty to ticket the kid. The kid did something wrong (twice), and that merited the ticket. What the "mayor" did was egregiously wrong, and merits his termination by the city. I have a feeling that will be forthcoming now that this has hit the wires.
Wait...there was logic in there? I musta missed that.
Big Mack
10-27-09, 12:36 PM
#24
Lead Lap
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Deerfield Beach, FL
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I just listed cases and quotes that say otherwise. Like I said, this obviously is not a black and white issue. I'm sure there are cases that support what you are saying and although I hate seeing contradictions like this in court rulings, it does make for interesting debates.
10-27-09, 12:41 PM
#25
Big Mack, you weren't there, (nor was I) to know how the cop actually handled the situation. But as the mayor said.. that was his main complaint.
The officers manner of conduct, not what he did.. (his job).
Maybe nobody will ever know. And re-read this thread.. plenty of people are whining. Me? I couldn't care less.
I just find comments like "I hate reading threads like this" hilarious.
Or..
"God, I hate it when people in power abuse their power." Welcome to Capitalist America. lol
MY PENI* IS BIGGER!! haha
The officers manner of conduct, not what he did.. (his job).
Maybe nobody will ever know. And re-read this thread.. plenty of people are whining. Me? I couldn't care less.
I just find comments like "I hate reading threads like this" hilarious.
Or..
"God, I hate it when people in power abuse their power." Welcome to Capitalist America. lol
MY PENI* IS BIGGER!! haha
10-27-09, 12:57 PM
#27
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe nobody will ever know. And re-read this thread.. plenty of people are whining. Me? I couldn't care less.
I just find comments like "I hate reading threads like this" hilarious.
Or..
"God, I hate it when people in power abuse their power." Welcome to Capitalist America. lol
MY PENI* IS BIGGER!! haha
I just find comments like "I hate reading threads like this" hilarious.
Or..
"God, I hate it when people in power abuse their power." Welcome to Capitalist America. lol
MY PENI* IS BIGGER!! haha
And my pepe cures cancer. Prove to me that it doesn't!! LOL.
Big Mack
10-27-09, 01:09 PM
#29
Pole Position
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: IL
Posts: 2,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody said he didn't have a license. He just didn't have it on him.
And we weren't there to know how poorly the situation was handled.
But yeah, power abuse. So what? Stick it to 'em!
Cops need to spend their time catching the bad guys. Not catching the people driving who left their wallets at home.
And we weren't there to know how poorly the situation was handled.
But yeah, power abuse. So what? Stick it to 'em!
Cops need to spend their time catching the bad guys. Not catching the people driving who left their wallets at home.
10-27-09, 01:12 PM
#30
F is for Fraud
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Québec
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.