South Carolina court rules driving 55 supicious

Status
Not open for further replies.
The laws should be well written and precise, so you can memorize them, obey them, and get in any crooked cops face and annoy him with your lawfulness without fear of reprisal.

With vague stuff like "impeding traffic" we might as well add that to "obstructing justice" and "disorderly conduct" for "contempt of cop."
 
Originally Posted By: OilNerd
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
I'm surprised he wasn't run over, it certainly is suspicious.


I never thought I'd see the day that driving 55mph in a 60mph zone would be regarded as "suspicious." I suppose driving 60mph in a 60 mph zone would be regarded as equally suspicious.

Motorist: Why did you pull me over, officer?
Officer: Because you were doing the speed limit.


Isn't that the truth around here. Most folks assume that not going 5 over the speed limit is too slow. Although the LEO's around here don't care as long as you're maintaining a steady speed appropriate to the minuscule amount of traffic, and not weaving. They're too busy busting meth labs and underage keggers.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

The moment you start excluding 80 year old grannies is the moment cash strapped grannies will start dealing drugs to subsidizing their retirement.

Well..I understand. But for now doesn't it make sense to profine young middle aged men of MidEastern decent.

Seriously I am of German Descent. (No not German American..I'm an American.) If People of German Descent were blowing up airplanes I would welcome being searched along with the other Germans if I were getting on the Plane..seriously. Political correctness (by the do-gooders) ftl.


I got to agree with Al here. I know, shocking. If people in your identity group are commiting more offenses then tough luck if that draws more scrutiny. I'm not going to say no seniors will or do deal in drugs or commit crimes, but I don't buy for one minute that they do in any significant number. The truth is seniors generally aren't scrutinized as much as other groups and I'd argue their crime commissions is very low anyway in actuality. I'm on the fence here. While I think everyone should be treated or suspected equally to a degree, I think "profiling" or more scrutiny makes sense if and when statistically a certain age, gender or ethnic group commit more offenses. To do otherwise would be a waste of time, resources and money.
 
New law:

Of you are going to drive 22mph in a 45mph zone (and Methuseleh was doing just that in front of me yesterday) you can no longer drive a Lincoln Town Car. You have to drive a Scion iQ with the rear airbag disabled.

lol.gif


Driving too slow and someone had marijuana? DUI should have been the charge. But I don't know if South Carolina does blood tests.

Blood tests get everything. I've got DUI clients that were below legal limit for alcohol, but the cocktail of prescription drugs, marijuana, and alcohol they were on made them a danger on the road. (don't believe me? take a muscle relaxer like Soma with a single glass of wine sometime....just don't drive)

Now, I'm waiting for the obligatory, "I drive better after smoking marijuana...." NO YOU DON'T! Look, I don't care if you mainline crushed up flintstones vitamins with codeine cough syrup and WD-40. As long as you do it in your own home.
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

The moment you start excluding 80 year old grannies is the moment cash strapped grannies will start dealing drugs to subsidizing their retirement.

Well..I understand. But for now doesn't it make sense to profine young middle aged men of MidEastern decent.

Seriously I am of German Descent. (No not German American..I'm an American.) If People of German Descent were blowing up airplanes I would welcome being searched along with the other Germans if I were getting on the Plane..seriously. Political correctness (by the do-gooders) ftl.


I got to agree with Al here. I know, shocking. If people in your identity group are commiting more offenses then tough luck if that draws more scrutiny. I'm not going to say no seniors will or do deal in drugs or commit crimes, but I don't buy for one minute that they do in any significant number. The truth is seniors generally aren't scrutinized as much as other groups and I'd argue their crime commissions is very low anyway in actuality. I'm on the fence here. While I think everyone should be treated or suspected equally to a degree, I think "profiling" or more scrutiny makes sense if and when statistically a certain age, gender or ethnic group commit more offenses. To do otherwise would be a waste of time, resources and money.


Wait a minute. That would mean that all white males would be profiled because of the right-wing terrorism like the Oklahoma bombing and such.
 
Originally Posted By: CivicFan

Wait a minute. That would mean that all white males would be profiled because of the right-wing terrorism like the Oklahoma bombing and such.


Ummm one incident vs action of untold actions of Young Eastern men..Read the paper or news much??

Again, not an indictment against the Muslim Religion. And I have zero problems with the Muslim Faith per se.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: mechanicx

I got to agree with Al here. I know, shocking.

Noted and appreciated.
wink.gif

I dont like the term "profiling" it smacks of political correctness, I would prefer "discriminating". If you are a LEO and not discriminting you are not doing your job. Discrimination is not automatically a bad thing - its a part of logical thinking. Do you not discriminate when you choose vegetables and fruits at the market?
-
That said, when profiling dont forget to profile the Irish and Scottish and Polish - the DNA of some of the most notorious terrorists of the past 25 years.
 
In general cops will always look like the bad guy to most of us, many of my friends are LEO and I can see the look on new comers faces once it is mentioned.

I am not for a police state but it is sad when a rapist, murderer or child molester is set free due to some technicality
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: CivicFan

Wait a minute. That would mean that all white males would be profiled because of the right-wing terrorism like the Oklahoma bombing and such.


Ummm one incident vs action of untold actions of Young Eastern men..Read the paper or news much??

Again, not an indictment against the Muslim Religion. And I have zero problems with the Muslim Faith per se.


Exactly it's a matter of probability. You are on a roll here.

A person statistically most likely to have a bomb in their car's trunk:

A. An 80 year-old grandma
B. A 20-year old female college student from Nebraska
C. A 30-year old white male with a wife and two kids
D. A 20-something Arabic male driving a rental
E. All of the above

Some seem to think it's E. Having said that, I don't know that a patrol officer should be profiling for traffick stops based on age, gender, or ethnicity. That would probably be too unreliable. But as to the bigger point and may be off topic a little, if you don't think the FBI isn't profiling certain white males and Arabs you have to be kidding. They do and have to. It's a matter of statistics though. Even an officer sees 10 cars go buy speeding, he is going to try to distinquish, who to stop you might also be drug or firearm trafficking, have a warrant, etc. It's a matter of statistics.
 
Look, if you only rely on probability then you will get what you deserved, a black swan, or what would happen at the worst case scenario (Murphy's law).

There are lots of mass killers who are white male, American with no Middle Eastern origin. Also there are a lot of African and Indonesian who are terrorists, as well as drug gang war spreading from Latin America.

So, what should we do in the end? I'd say if you do not look like Japanese, Chinese, Korean nerds, then you should be profiled.

Maybe all high school should have only white and Asian young boys scanned with metal detectors, since that's who committed the mass killing with guns.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: CivicFan

Wait a minute. That would mean that all white males would be profiled because of the right-wing terrorism like the Oklahoma bombing and such.


Ummm one incident vs action of untold actions of Young Eastern men..Read the paper or news much??



No offense Al, but have you been reading the newspaper very often? "one incident"? You obviously just aren't paying attention: http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizations/militant-extremists-united-states/p9236

The most likely terrorist you're going to find in the US is probably a white male. Here's the face of the most recent terrorist in my home state: http://www.kxly.com/news/27140311/detail.html

But the fear-mongering over terrorism has nothing to do with this guy. This is a case of poor police work, pure and simple. I understand why the guy was profiled, and I think race was probably a very small component of it; he looked sketchy. If he was a white dude with nappy dreadlocks who hadn't showered in a few weeks, with skin tags on his face--and he was driving 5mph under the speed limit, I'm going to bet he would have been pulled over. I'm also going to bet that you or I would not have been pulled over. And that's the point. It's OK to be "suspicious", but follow the law--because that's the system we have. I don't want to live somewhere where "looking suspicious" is the only justification needed for pulling over someone. And the claim that 5mph was "suspicious" is ridiculous. This case never would have survived on appeal.

Look, I imagine I want the same thing as you-I want bad guys to go to jail, and I want the law enforced evenly and fairly; but what I'm thankful for is that we live in a system that relies on codified law, not the whim of what someone thinks is 'reasonable', because while that may sound good in theory, one person's reasonable may not equal another. Lots of atrocities were committed under the guise of being 'reasonable'. While the system we have certainly isn't perfect, and people like to point out examples of where it falls down on both ends (killers getting a walk on a technicality, police framing innocent people), and there are always improvements to be made, the rule of law works pretty well.
 
But young, white males in certain localities are being scrutinized and profiled as it is. It's only when it comes out that other groups are scrutinized does it seem to become an issue.
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
But young, white males in certain localities are being scrutinized and profiled as it is. It's only when it comes out that other groups are scrutinized does it seem to become an issue.


The one that should be profiled are young (under 40) male gun owners with mental health issues. Look at all the mass killers, they are all young male gun owners with mental health issues or radical though.
 
Originally Posted By: mpvue
DWB

http://www.bustedmugshots.com/south-carolina/spartanburg/nicholas-carl-davy/20545201


No doubt about it. He did draw attention to himself by driving so slow, but DWB is what got him pulled over.

I85 is one big speed trap. There are sections that have 70 MPH posted limits, but much of it is 55-65 MPH when it really doesn't need to be. You can't win. You either have to go above the speed limit to keep up with traffic, or drive at the limit and impede traffic, your choice. The whole interstate is saturated with troopers looking to write tickets. They have little hiding spots all over the place. I guess that takes the place of toll booths.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD

No offense Al, but have you been reading the newspaper very often? "one incident"? You obviously just aren't paying attention: http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizations/militant-extremists-united-states/p9236



OK let me clarify..I was talking about Airplanes. And lets talk about strapping on bombs and blowing themselves up. When it happens here take note on who does it. I guarantee it won't be Amish Folks.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I would prefer "discriminating". If you are a LEO and not discriminting you are not doing your job. Discrimination is not automatically a bad thing - its a part of logical thinking. Do you not discriminate when you choose vegetables and fruits at the market?

Exactly. A cop that is not doing that needs to find another career.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Look, if you only rely on probability then you will get what you deserved, a black swan, or what would happen at the worst case scenario (Murphy's law).

Probably it a very powerful tool. Anytime you can separate the heard using Probability based on "discrimination" you are stacking the odds in your favor.

Quantum Mechanics works on improbably and scientists' ability to work in that probabilistic worlds is within the accuracy of a human hair compared to the distance of New York to San Frisco.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: JOD

No offense Al, but have you been reading the newspaper very often? "one incident"? You obviously just aren't paying attention: http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizations/militant-extremists-united-states/p9236



And lets talk about strapping on bombs and blowing themselves up. When it happens here take note on who does it. I guarantee it won't be Amish Folks.


does it really matter that the nutcase in Spokane wasn't going to include himself in the carnage? I don't see much difference.

And I still fail to see what this inflammatory diversion has to do with pulling a guy over for no just cause. The lower court ruled that following the law qualifies as "suspicious" (the minimum speed was 45, and has 10mph over that). I'm having a hard time understanding how a reasonable person can believe that following the posted speed limit in plain view of a cop qualifies as "suspicious".
 
Originally Posted By: OilNerd
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
I'm surprised he wasn't run over, it certainly is suspicious.


I never thought I'd see the day that driving 55mph in a 60mph zone would be regarded as "suspicious." I suppose driving 60mph in a 60 mph zone would be regarded as equally suspicious.

Motorist: Why did you pull me over, officer?
Officer: Because you were doing the speed limit.


Well I never go less than 75-80 on the highway and that's in my truck. In a good car it can be a bit faster.

When I'm going somewhere in a good car I usually do 90-100, or more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top