cop suspended after ticketing mayor’s son during checkpoint stop
#31
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (15)
So the "mayor" was there? Or did the mayor simply rely on what his kid told him, and then proceeded to act incorrectly? He's an idiot, plain and simple. The cop did his job, and because the "mayor" didn't like that his kid was the one given a ticket (for doing two things wrong), he did something worse. Like I said, we should see his termination for being a complete jackass.
I don't think they were whining, simply commenting on how it seems to be a recurring theme. Douche gets power, douche abuses power. And the vicious cycle continues.
And my pepe cures cancer. Prove to me that it doesn't!! LOL.
Big Mack
I don't think they were whining, simply commenting on how it seems to be a recurring theme. Douche gets power, douche abuses power. And the vicious cycle continues.
And my pepe cures cancer. Prove to me that it doesn't!! LOL.
Big Mack
nice pic.. haha
#33
Lexus Fanatic
"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.
Here, my friend, is the law.....and the driving Priviledges in your own state of FL. I don't know if you have read it or not, but if not, you should have, when you got your license. Similiar traffic codes exist in all 50 states.
http://www.123driving.com/drivers-handbook2.shtml
Florida Driver’s Handbook - Chapter 2 Driving Privilege
You are Here: Traffic School » Florida Drivers Manual » Chapter 2 - Driving Privilege
The Florida drivers handbook is your guide to getting a Florida drivers license. Inside the drivers manual you will find driving laws, explanations of how to get your drivers license, and details of the different types of drivers licenses Florida offers.
You are Here: Traffic School » Florida Drivers Manual » Chapter 2 - Driving Privilege
The Florida drivers handbook is your guide to getting a Florida drivers license. Inside the drivers manual you will find driving laws, explanations of how to get your drivers license, and details of the different types of drivers licenses Florida offers.
Last edited by mmarshall; 10-27-09 at 05:03 PM.
#35
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: el clinico magnifico
Posts: 3,417
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.
Back on topic, that mayor is a tool for suspending the officer for equally applying the law regardless of the person's status.
Last edited by LB Lex; 10-27-09 at 05:41 PM.
#36
Lexus Fanatic
People have the right to travel (and drive) state to state. However states may regulate drivers in their state as long as the regulation is not discriminatory against non-state residents, unduly burdensome and since it is a fundamental right any limitation must promote a compelling state interest. For example, states can place a minimum age to drive (the Constitution does not list an age) and this can be done because it passes Constitutional scrutiny. Also those who are physically or mentally impaired cannot obtain a drivers license because it is unsafe for the state to do so. Moreover, states can set up toll roads/bridges requiring you to pay to use the road/bridge thereby restricting your ability to travel on it. So yes, traveling /driving is a right but it can be limited and in some cases revoked (with Due Process).
Back on topic, that mayor is a tool for suspending the officer for equally applying the law regardless of the person's status.
Back on topic, that mayor is a tool for suspending the officer for equally applying the law regardless of the person's status.
#37
Lexus Fanatic
Now, if the cop acted in an unacceptable manner by raising his voice, using insulting terms, ordering him out of the car for no reason, spread-eagle, or doing a pat-down or strip search, like you sometimes see on TV shows, that would be quite another matter. Then the cop would (maybe) deserve a reprimand or disciplinary action.
#38
F is for Fraud
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Québec
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You opinon noted and respected, but I fail to see how simply asking one to show a valid drivers' license and registration is an abuse of power. That is simply upholding state law.
Now, if the cop acted in an unacceptable manner by raising his voice, using insulting terms, ordering him out of the car for no reason, spread-eagle, or doing a pat-down or strip search, like you sometimes see on TV shows, that would be quite another matter. Then the cop would (maybe) deserve a reprimand or disciplinary action.
Now, if the cop acted in an unacceptable manner by raising his voice, using insulting terms, ordering him out of the car for no reason, spread-eagle, or doing a pat-down or strip search, like you sometimes see on TV shows, that would be quite another matter. Then the cop would (maybe) deserve a reprimand or disciplinary action.
#39
Lexus Fanatic
Yeah, I am always appaled when I watch Cops how easily a regular traffic stop always turns into a full-fledged search of the car and the arrest of the occupants. Something like that would probably never happen in Canada because a cop can't search your car unless you give them your permission, or unless they have a warrant.
On the COPS TV show, though (which, like you, I also watch), when they do search, they usually find something illegal, such as drugs, weapons, contraband, etc.....or an outstanding warrant for something previous. That, of course, is not always the case in real life. And it (probably) wasn't the case with the mayor's son either. Still, the cop, IMO, didn't do anything wrong....he simply asked, in a normal manner, for a driver's license.
#40
Lexus Test Driver
This is an absolute absurdity. I hope that mayor gets it handed to him.
JonSC4 and any others against checkpoints, come down to Broward General with me for a day my friend I'll show you what a Level 1 trauma patient looks like who's been ejected through the windshield after being in a MVA unrestrained. And then not to mention the week they spend intubated, the multiple operations they need to repair the 17 fractures, and the months of painful rehab to regain strength and function. Oh yea, you also have a tube stuck in your pee-pee as you can't get up to urinate. What I'm describing is the person who's lucky enough to make a near-full or full recovery.
JonSC4 and any others against checkpoints, come down to Broward General with me for a day my friend I'll show you what a Level 1 trauma patient looks like who's been ejected through the windshield after being in a MVA unrestrained. And then not to mention the week they spend intubated, the multiple operations they need to repair the 17 fractures, and the months of painful rehab to regain strength and function. Oh yea, you also have a tube stuck in your pee-pee as you can't get up to urinate. What I'm describing is the person who's lucky enough to make a near-full or full recovery.
#41
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (1)
Hope the cop gets his suspension lifted and a public apology from the Mayer, then I hope the Mayer fails to get reelected when his time is up. I have no problem with DUI and other Road Check points because I always make it through whether stopped or not just fine. I have all my paper work up to date and they never have a reason to ticket me.
I say pull over all those other idiots for anything, ticket them, make them pay the fines. Better they pay than me. The more of these idiots the police can ticket the more money they can generate for the county/state, and the less I will have to suffer during these economic times. Might as well make those that get caught driving illegally, speed and whatnot and pay instead of the rest of us. Why should I care if those people have to pay fines? I'm not paying it.
I say pull over all those other idiots for anything, ticket them, make them pay the fines. Better they pay than me. The more of these idiots the police can ticket the more money they can generate for the county/state, and the less I will have to suffer during these economic times. Might as well make those that get caught driving illegally, speed and whatnot and pay instead of the rest of us. Why should I care if those people have to pay fines? I'm not paying it.
#44
Lexus Fanatic
#45
Pole Position
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: somewhere
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You opinon noted and respected, but I fail to see how simply asking one to show a valid drivers' license and registration is an abuse of power. That is simply upholding state law.
Now, if the cop acted in an unacceptable manner by raising his voice, using insulting terms, ordering him out of the car for no reason, spread-eagle, or doing a pat-down or strip search, like you sometimes see on TV shows, that would be quite another matter. Then the cop would (maybe) deserve a reprimand or disciplinary action.
Now, if the cop acted in an unacceptable manner by raising his voice, using insulting terms, ordering him out of the car for no reason, spread-eagle, or doing a pat-down or strip search, like you sometimes see on TV shows, that would be quite another matter. Then the cop would (maybe) deserve a reprimand or disciplinary action.
and i have no problem with the officer giving him the ticket, (for if he wasnt legal to drive/ no insurance its not good.) and once again thats the law.
But if the mayor flipped out to this point and was heated im sure there was a reason. We have yet to hear the sons side of the story.
And im gonna just make an assumption here, the fact that:
"he’s convinced he handled the situation correctly."
seems to imply what i said earlier, no matter what, he thinks hes right
Then again its just an assumption
TLR
we have yet to hear sons side of the story to justify or reprimand mayors action.
if officer just did a straight routine stop + ticket, mayor is at fault.