Smiling without a license? Straight to jail.

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1615719218225315841/vid/576x522/31Z1nO1DJDmOGYtd.mp4?tag=16

This is a cop who should not be one.

The driver in this video represented himself in court and the magistrate
convicted him of the ridiculous "special restriction on lamps" charge, even
though the statute itself expressly provides an exemption for flashing lights
on a vehicle if used to warn other drivers of unusual or dangerous road
conditions. The magistrate did dismiss the charge of having an unsigned
registration card, since that crime isn't even on the books anymore in West
Virginia. (And yet, it's the crime the driver was allegedly put in handcuffs
for, even though it was really because he hurt the cop's feelings by laughing
without permission.)

Fortunately, this case kinda went viral and a civil rights lawyer contacted
the driver and took his case on appeal pro bono, at which all charges were
dismissed.

I would love to have gotten Officer Tackleberry on the stand:

When you stopped the defendant you said flashing his lights was stupid, isn't
that right? Given the police department's public rationale for these speed
traps, why is it stupid? When your chief gets on TV with all the stars on his
collar and talks about these initiatives, isn't it the stated goal to
encourage people to slow down, obey the law, and save lives?

Well, flashing headlights does just that. It encourages people to slow down
and obey the law. Seems like you and the defendant are on the same team here,
no? The only thing the defendant's actions deprived you of is revenue. It
robbed you of the ability to write tickets and take money from people a couple
of hundred dollars at a time.

So unless the truth is that you and your fellow officers don't really care
about stopping speeding and saving lives, and the whole public safety spiel is
just a PR cover for a revenue grab, there's nothing stupid about what the
defendant did at all, is there, Officer?

On 1/19/2023 9:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Smiling without a license? Straight to jail.
>
>
> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1615719218225315841/vid/576x522/31Z1nO1DJDmOGYtd.mp4?tag=16
>
> This is a cop who should not be one.
>
> The driver in this video represented himself in court and the
> magistrate convicted him of the ridiculous "special restriction on
> lamps" charge, even though the statute itself expressly provides an
> exemption for flashing lights on a vehicle if used to warn other
> drivers of unusual or dangerous road conditions. The magistrate did
> dismiss the charge of having an unsigned registration card, since
> that crime isn't even on the books anymore in West Virginia. (And
> yet, it's the crime the driver was allegedly put in handcuffs for,
> even though it was really because he hurt the cop's feelings by
> laughing without permission.)
>
> Fortunately, this case kinda went viral and a civil rights lawyer
> contacted the driver and took his case on appeal pro bono, at which
> all charges were dismissed.
>
> I would love to have gotten Officer Tackleberry on the stand:
>
> When you stopped the defendant you said flashing his lights was
> stupid, isn't that right? Given the police department's public
> rationale for these speed traps, why is it stupid? When your chief
> gets on TV with all the stars on his collar and talks about these
> initiatives, isn't it the stated goal to encourage people to slow
> down, obey the law, and save lives?
>
> Well, flashing headlights does just that. It encourages people to
> slow down and obey the law. Seems like you and the defendant are on
> the same team here, no? The only thing the defendant's actions
> deprived you of is revenue. It robbed you of the ability to write
> tickets and take money from people a couple of hundred dollars at a
> time.
>
> So unless the truth is that you and your fellow officers don't really
> care about stopping speeding and saving lives, and the whole public
> safety spiel is just a PR cover for a revenue grab, there's nothing
> stupid about what the defendant did at all, is there, Officer?

Maybe I don't understand. Surely you don't mean that women must wear "a
dress shirt, tie, and jacket". But if you're defending the new rule as
simply establishing standards for all, remember that such standards for
women have usually been paternalistic ones about "decency".

On 1/20/2023 10:47 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 1/19/2023 9:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Smiling without a license? Straight to jail.
>>
>>
>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1615719218225315841/vid/576x522/31Z1nO1DJDmOGYtd.mp4?tag=16
>>
>>  This is a cop who should not be one.
>>
>> The driver in this video represented himself in court and the
>> magistrate convicted him of the ridiculous "special restriction on
>> lamps" charge, even though the statute itself expressly provides an
>> exemption for flashing lights on a vehicle if used to warn other
>> drivers of unusual or dangerous road conditions. The magistrate did
>> dismiss the charge of having an unsigned registration card, since
>> that crime isn't even on the books anymore in West Virginia. (And
>> yet, it's the crime the driver was allegedly put in handcuffs for,
>> even though it was really because he hurt the cop's feelings by
>> laughing without permission.)
>>
>> Fortunately, this case kinda went viral and a civil rights lawyer
>> contacted the driver and took his case on appeal pro bono, at which
>> all charges were dismissed.
>>
>> I would love to have gotten Officer Tackleberry on the stand:
>>
>> When you stopped the defendant you said flashing his lights was
>> stupid, isn't that right? Given the police department's public
>> rationale for these speed traps, why is it stupid? When your chief
>> gets on TV with all the stars on his collar and talks about these
>> initiatives, isn't it the stated goal to encourage people to slow
>> down, obey the law, and save lives?
>>
>> Well, flashing headlights does just that. It encourages people to
>> slow down and obey the law. Seems like you and the defendant are on
>> the same team here, no? The only thing the defendant's actions
>> deprived you of is revenue. It robbed you of the ability to write
>> tickets and take money from people a couple of hundred dollars at a
>> time.
>>
>> So unless the truth is that you and your fellow officers don't really
>> care about stopping speeding and saving lives, and the whole public
>> safety spiel is just a PR cover for a revenue grab, there's nothing
>> stupid about what the defendant did at all, is there, Officer?
>
> Maybe I don't understand.  Surely you don't mean that women must wear "a
> dress shirt, tie, and jacket".  But if you're defending the new rule as
> simply establishing standards for all, remember that such standards for
> women have usually been paternalistic ones about "decency".

<<<<<<<< Ignore above >>>>>>>>

On 1/19/2023 9:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Smiling without a license? Straight to jail.
>
>
> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1615719218225315841/vid/576x522/31Z1nO1DJDmOGYtd.mp4?tag=16
>
> This is a cop who should not be one.
>
> The driver in this video represented himself in court and the magistrate
> convicted him of the ridiculous "special restriction on lamps" charge, even
> though the statute itself expressly provides an exemption for flashing lights
> on a vehicle if used to warn other drivers of unusual or dangerous road
> conditions. The magistrate did dismiss the charge of having an unsigned
> registration card, since that crime isn't even on the books anymore in West
> Virginia. (And yet, it's the crime the driver was allegedly put in handcuffs
> for, even though it was really because he hurt the cop's feelings by laughing
> without permission.)
>
> Fortunately, this case kinda went viral and a civil rights lawyer contacted
> the driver and took his case on appeal pro bono, at which all charges were
> dismissed.
>
> I would love to have gotten Officer Tackleberry on the stand:
>
> When you stopped the defendant you said flashing his lights was stupid, isn't
> that right? Given the police department's public rationale for these speed
> traps, why is it stupid? When your chief gets on TV with all the stars on his
> collar and talks about these initiatives, isn't it the stated goal to
> encourage people to slow down, obey the law, and save lives?
>
> Well, flashing headlights does just that. It encourages people to slow down
> and obey the law. Seems like you and the defendant are on the same team here,
> no? The only thing the defendant's actions deprived you of is revenue. It
> robbed you of the ability to write tickets and take money from people a couple
> of hundred dollars at a time.
>
> So unless the truth is that you and your fellow officers don't really care
> about stopping speeding and saving lives, and the whole public safety spiel is
> just a PR cover for a revenue grab, there's nothing stupid about what the
> defendant did at all, is there, Officer?

Might depend on whether the speed trap was a routine revenue extraction
or a response to complaints by residents with children.

In article <_PyyL.405779$vBI8.270755@fx15.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/19/2023 9:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > Smiling without a license? Straight to jail.
> >
> >
> > https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1615719218225315841/vid/576x522/31Z1nO
> > 1DJDmOGYtd.mp4?tag=16
> >
> > This is a cop who should not be one.
> >
> > The driver in this video represented himself in court and the magistrate
> > convicted him of the ridiculous "special restriction on lamps" charge, even
> > though the statute itself expressly provides an exemption for flashing
> > lights on a vehicle if used to warn other drivers of unusual or dangerous
> > road conditions. The magistrate did dismiss the charge of having an
> > unsigned registration card, since that crime isn't even on the books
> > anymore in West Virginia. (And yet, it's the crime the driver was allegedly
> > put in handcuffs for, even though it was really because he hurt the cop's
> > feelings by laughing without permission.)
> >
> > Fortunately, this case kinda went viral and a civil rights lawyer contacted
> > the driver and took his case on appeal pro bono, at which all charges were
> > dismissed.
> >
> > I would love to have gotten Officer Tackleberry on the stand:
> >
> > When you stopped the defendant you said flashing his lights was stupid,
> > isn't that right? Given the police department's public rationale for these
> > speed traps, why is it stupid? When your chief gets on TV with all the
> > stars on his collar and talks about these initiatives, isn't it the stated
> > goal to encourage people to slow down, obey the law, and save lives?
> >
> > Well, flashing headlights does just that. It encourages people to slow down
> > and obey the law. Seems like you and the defendant are on the same team
> > here, no? The only thing the defendant's actions deprived you of is revenue.
> > It robbed you of the ability to write tickets and take money from people a
> > couple of hundred dollars at a time.
> >
> > So unless the truth is that you and your fellow officers don't really care
> > about stopping speeding and saving lives, and the whole public safety spiel
> > is just a PR cover for a revenue grab, there's nothing stupid about what
> > the defendant did at all, is there, Officer?
>
> Might depend on whether the speed trap was a routine revenue extraction
> or a response to complaints by residents with children.

It was on a freeway. If kids are playing on and around a freeway, those
residents should be arrested for child endangerment and neglect and if
kids were indeed present, the defendant *still* would have been doing
the right thing encouraging other drivers to slow down.

On 1/20/2023 11:48 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <_PyyL.405779$vBI8.270755@fx15.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/19/2023 9:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> Smiling without a license? Straight to jail.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1615719218225315841/vid/576x522/31Z1nO
>>> 1DJDmOGYtd.mp4?tag=16
>>>
>>> This is a cop who should not be one.
>>>
>>> The driver in this video represented himself in court and the magistrate
>>> convicted him of the ridiculous "special restriction on lamps" charge, even
>>> though the statute itself expressly provides an exemption for flashing
>>> lights on a vehicle if used to warn other drivers of unusual or dangerous
>>> road conditions. The magistrate did dismiss the charge of having an
>>> unsigned registration card, since that crime isn't even on the books
>>> anymore in West Virginia. (And yet, it's the crime the driver was allegedly
>>> put in handcuffs for, even though it was really because he hurt the cop's
>>> feelings by laughing without permission.)
>>>
>>> Fortunately, this case kinda went viral and a civil rights lawyer contacted
>>> the driver and took his case on appeal pro bono, at which all charges were
>>> dismissed.
>>>
>>> I would love to have gotten Officer Tackleberry on the stand:
>>>
>>> When you stopped the defendant you said flashing his lights was stupid,
>>> isn't that right? Given the police department's public rationale for these
>>> speed traps, why is it stupid? When your chief gets on TV with all the
>>> stars on his collar and talks about these initiatives, isn't it the stated
>>> goal to encourage people to slow down, obey the law, and save lives?
>>>
>>> Well, flashing headlights does just that. It encourages people to slow down
>>> and obey the law. Seems like you and the defendant are on the same team
>>> here, no? The only thing the defendant's actions deprived you of is revenue.
>>> It robbed you of the ability to write tickets and take money from people a
>>> couple of hundred dollars at a time.
>>>
>>> So unless the truth is that you and your fellow officers don't really care
>>> about stopping speeding and saving lives, and the whole public safety spiel
>>> is just a PR cover for a revenue grab, there's nothing stupid about what
>>> the defendant did at all, is there, Officer?
>>
>> Might depend on whether the speed trap was a routine revenue extraction
>> or a response to complaints by residents with children.
>
> It was on a freeway. If kids are playing on and around a freeway, those
> residents should be arrested for child endangerment and neglect and if
> kids were indeed present, the defendant *still* would have been doing
> the right thing encouraging other drivers to slow down.

Okay. Then, back to your court proceeding, it seems a prosecutor could
redirect that the practice of warning other motorists of a speed-trap
actually makes them generally more fearless, i.e., encouraged to speed.

In article <a3AyL.407031$vBI8.51482@fx15.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/20/2023 11:48 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <_PyyL.405779$vBI8.270755@fx15.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/19/2023 9:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> >>> Fortunately, this case kinda went viral and a civil rights lawyer
> >>> contacted the driver and took his case on appeal pro bono, at which
> >>> all charges were dismissed.
> >>>
> >>> I would love to have gotten Officer Tackleberry on the stand:
> >>>
> >>> When you stopped the defendant you said flashing his lights was stupid,
> >>> isn't that right? Given the police department's public rationale for
> >>> these speed traps, why is it stupid? When your chief gets on TV with all
> >>> the stars on his collar and talks about these initiatives, isn't it the
> >>> stated goal to encourage people to slow down, obey the law, and save
> >>> ives?
> >>>
> >>> Well, flashing headlights does just that. It encourages people to slow
> >>> down and obey the law. Seems like you and the defendant are on the same
> >>> team here, no? The only thing the defendant's actions deprived you of is
> >>> revenue. It robbed you of the ability to write tickets and take money
> >>> from people a couple of hundred dollars at a time.
> >>>
> >>> So unless the truth is that you and your fellow officers don't really
> >>> care about stopping speeding and saving lives, and the whole public
> >>> safety spiel is just a PR cover for a revenue grab, there's nothing
> >>> stupid about what the defendant did at all, is there, Officer?
> >>
> >> Might depend on whether the speed trap was a routine revenue extraction
> >> or a response to complaints by residents with children.
> >
> > It was on a freeway. If kids are playing on and around a freeway, those
> > residents should be arrested for child endangerment and neglect and if
> > kids were indeed present, the defendant *still* would have been doing
> > the right thing encouraging other drivers to slow down.
>
> Okay. Then, back to your court proceeding, it seems a prosecutor could
> redirect that the practice of warning other motorists of a speed-trap
> actually makes them generally more fearless, i.e., encouraged to speed.

Not really because that warning can't be depended upon. Sure, you got
warned this time but you know that you can't count on that happening
every time there's a speed trap somewhere.

And besides, when it comes right down to it, IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW to
do this. There's no law in any of the 50 states that prohibits warning
other motorists that the cops are trolling for speeders.

There was a case of a guy in Austin back when I was in college there
(late 80s) who stood on the side of the road holding up a sign that said
"Police speed trap ahead". Of course that pissed the cops off, who
arrested him on an obstruction charge. Judge dismissed it as protected
speech under the 1st Amendment-- both under the Free Speech Clause and
the Redress Clause.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>Smiling without a license? Straight to jail.

>https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1615719218225315841/vid/576x522/31Z1nO1DJDmOGYtd.mp4?tag=16

>This is a cop who should not be one.

>The driver in this video represented himself in court and the magistrate
>convicted him of the ridiculous "special restriction on lamps" charge, even
>though the statute itself expressly provides an exemption for flashing lights
>on a vehicle if used to warn other drivers of unusual or dangerous road
>conditions. The magistrate did dismiss the charge of having an unsigned
>registration card, since that crime isn't even on the books anymore in West
>Virginia. (And yet, it's the crime the driver was allegedly put in handcuffs
>for, even though it was really because he hurt the cop's feelings by laughing
>without permission.)

Oh. My. Gawd. Everything about this story is STOOPID but why was such a
law about signing registration cards ever on the books to begin with?

One signs a receipt because one has received something. As vehicle
registration is required in law, the public official in charge of
vehicle registration issues the registration card in his name. If a
signature is needed, then it's a fascimile of the public official's
signature, not the vehicle owner's!

Comcast pulls this crap on me. If I return rented equipment to their
location, I need the receipt they've generated to prove that the
equipment is in their possession and no longer in my possession. But the
clerk asks for my signature, which I routinely object to since I have no
ability to supervise the process of completing the process of putting
the equipment back into inventory.

Getting the handcuffs slapped on? Cops should be taught as much about
instinctive human reactions as we all learned on Lie To Me. This cop
can't distinguish between "fear face" and what he thought was being made
fun of. In "fear face", the edges of the mouth are upturned but it's not
a smile because the eyes aren't smiling and the muscles around the mouth
are taut and held in place for a few beats. And the laughter wasn't about
the cop. It was, "Why me, God?"

Did the driver file a Freedom of Information Request to obtain the
video from the police officer's bodycam and microphone?

>Fortunately, this case kinda went viral and a civil rights lawyer contacted
>the driver and took his case on appeal pro bono, at which all charges were
>dismissed.

I'm glad someone helped him.

>I would love to have gotten Officer Tackleberry on the stand:

>When you stopped the defendant you said flashing his lights was stupid, isn't
>that right? Given the police department's public rationale for these speed
>traps, why is it stupid? When your chief gets on TV with all the stars on his
>collar and talks about these initiatives, isn't it the stated goal to
>encourage people to slow down, obey the law, and save lives?

>Well, flashing headlights does just that. It encourages people to slow down
>and obey the law. Seems like you and the defendant are on the same team here,
>no? The only thing the defendant's actions deprived you of is revenue. It
>robbed you of the ability to write tickets and take money from people a couple
>of hundred dollars at a time.

>So unless the truth is that you and your fellow officers don't really care
>about stopping speeding and saving lives, and the whole public safety spiel is
>just a PR cover for a revenue grab, there's nothing stupid about what the
>defendant did at all, is there, Officer?

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

>>>. . .

>>Might depend on whether the speed trap was a routine revenue extraction
>>or a response to complaints by residents with children.

>It was on a freeway. If kids are playing on and around a freeway, those
>residents should be arrested for child endangerment and neglect and if
>kids were indeed present, the defendant *still* would have been doing
>the right thing encouraging other drivers to slow down.

Why is moviePig making his usual contribution of STOOPID? Why does
anything depend on the police department's motives for setting up a
speed trap?

Using the civil right of free speech, a right moviePig objects to, the
driver communicated with drivers of vehicles in the opposing direction
by flashing his light: Slow down! Unusual condition!

That there is an individual liberty at issue is all that matters.
moviePig will never acknowledge this.

In <tqep9s$26lcn$1@dont-email.me> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:

[snip]

>Comcast pulls this crap on me. If I return rented equipment to their
>location, I need the receipt they've generated to prove that the
>equipment is in their possession and no longer in my possession. But the
>clerk asks for my signature, which I routinely object to since I have no
>ability to supervise the process of completing the process of putting
>the equipment back into inventory.

justfor the hell ofit, whenever I have to sign one of
the electronic pads I'll (for example) sign my name AND
put "costco" next to it.

I figure anyone playing games with those files to put
"my signature" (and a thousand others) on their invoices
won't edit out that additional scribble..

>Getting the handcuffs slapped on? Cops should be taught as much about
>instinctive human reactions as we all learned on Lie To Me.

How about NOT hiring bumdass folk like this as cops in
the first place. (With a similar comment to all the
people who want cops to be taught not to be racists, etc.)

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>On 1/20/2023 11:48 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>On 1/19/2023 9:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>>>>>Fortunately, this case kinda went viral and a civil rights lawyer
>>>>>contacted the driver and took his case on appeal pro bono, at which
>>>>>all charges were dismissed.

>>>>>I would love to have gotten Officer Tackleberry on the stand:

>>>>>When you stopped the defendant you said flashing his lights was stupid,
>>>>>isn't that right? Given the police department's public rationale for
>>>>>these speed traps, why is it stupid? When your chief gets on TV with all
>>>>>the stars on his collar and talks about these initiatives, isn't it the
>>>>>stated goal to encourage people to slow down, obey the law, and save
>>>>>ives?

>>>>>Well, flashing headlights does just that. It encourages people to slow
>>>>>down and obey the law. Seems like you and the defendant are on the same
>>>>>team here, no? The only thing the defendant's actions deprived you of is
>>>>>revenue. It robbed you of the ability to write tickets and take money
>>>>>from people a couple of hundred dollars at a time.

>>>>>So unless the truth is that you and your fellow officers don't really
>>>>>care about stopping speeding and saving lives, and the whole public
>>>>>safety spiel is just a PR cover for a revenue grab, there's nothing
>>>>>stupid about what the defendant did at all, is there, Officer?

>>>>Might depend on whether the speed trap was a routine revenue extraction
>>>>or a response to complaints by residents with children.

>>>It was on a freeway. If kids are playing on and around a freeway, those
>>>residents should be arrested for child endangerment and neglect and if
>>>kids were indeed present, the defendant *still* would have been doing
>>>the right thing encouraging other drivers to slow down.

>>Okay. Then, back to your court proceeding, it seems a prosecutor could
>>redirect that the practice of warning other motorists of a speed-trap
>>actually makes them generally more fearless, i.e., encouraged to speed.

>Not really because that warning can't be depended upon. Sure, you got
>warned this time but you know that you can't count on that happening
>every time there's a speed trap somewhere.

moviePig is doing Schenck here. Mr. Schenck's flyer told men subject to
the draft to "know their rights" because knowing one's rights makes one
question coersion by government and not comply willingly. During a
national emergency, individual liberty is suspended and one can be
convicted and go to prison.

>And besides, when it comes right down to it, IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW to
>do this. There's no law in any of the 50 states that prohibits warning
>other motorists that the cops are trolling for speeders.

>There was a case of a guy in Austin back when I was in college there
>(late 80s) who stood on the side of the road holding up a sign that said
>"Police speed trap ahead". Of course that pissed the cops off, who
>arrested him on an obstruction charge. Judge dismissed it as protected
>speech under the 1st Amendment-- both under the Free Speech Clause and
>the Redress Clause.

I wish it were part of all police training that cops become familiar with
basic liberties too.

It would have been truly amusing if the sign said "Obey the speed limit.
Speed trap ahead." He'd have been arrested for directly telling
motorists to comply with the law!

danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:

>[snip]

>>Comcast pulls this crap on me. If I return rented equipment to their
>>location, I need the receipt they've generated to prove that the
>>equipment is in their possession and no longer in my possession. But the
>>clerk asks for my signature, which I routinely object to since I have no
>>ability to supervise the process of completing the process of putting
>>the equipment back into inventory.

>justfor the hell ofit, whenever I have to sign one of
>the electronic pads I'll (for example) sign my name AND
>put "costco" next to it.

That's a great idea! The electronic keypad just captures the signature,
doesn't compare it to one's official signature. I think I'll put in the
store name from now on.

>I figure anyone playing games with those files to put
>"my signature" (and a thousand others) on their invoices
>won't edit out that additional scribble..

>>Getting the handcuffs slapped on? Cops should be taught as much about
>>instinctive human reactions as we all learned on Lie To Me.

>How about NOT hiring bumdass folk like this as cops in
>the first place. (With a similar comment to all the
>people who want cops to be taught not to be racists, etc.)

Re-education is punishment. My attitude is everybody is prejudice in
some way that everybody else will find to be unreasonable. The issue
isn't whether prejudice exists and never will be. The issue is behavior.

There is a police encounter with a member of the public. It doesn't
matter what the cop feels about the person being encountered. Never take
him into custody for "contempt of cop" under any circumstances. There is
no legal justification and the cop simply doesn't have that kind of
power to act on his own emotions.

I'd really rather ignore what a cop says and does when he's not on the
job that's just running his mouth and not criminal in any way. There's a
case like that in Chicago with lots of civil rights leaders demanding
that a cop be fired for having posted on line in forums with other Proud
Boys. He did get suspended but that was for a rules violation for
failure to report having been inteviewed by the FBI's January 6th
investigation for having posted the statements.

Cops are prohibited from having been participants in criminal
conspiracies past and present, such as past gang memberships. Posting on
line is hardly enough to prove one's participation in a criminal
conspiracy.

On 1/20/2023 1:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <a3AyL.407031$vBI8.51482@fx15.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/20/2023 11:48 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <_PyyL.405779$vBI8.270755@fx15.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/19/2023 9:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>>>> Fortunately, this case kinda went viral and a civil rights lawyer
>>>>> contacted the driver and took his case on appeal pro bono, at which
>>>>> all charges were dismissed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would love to have gotten Officer Tackleberry on the stand:
>>>>>
>>>>> When you stopped the defendant you said flashing his lights was stupid,
>>>>> isn't that right? Given the police department's public rationale for
>>>>> these speed traps, why is it stupid? When your chief gets on TV with all
>>>>> the stars on his collar and talks about these initiatives, isn't it the
>>>>> stated goal to encourage people to slow down, obey the law, and save
>>>>> ives?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, flashing headlights does just that. It encourages people to slow
>>>>> down and obey the law. Seems like you and the defendant are on the same
>>>>> team here, no? The only thing the defendant's actions deprived you of is
>>>>> revenue. It robbed you of the ability to write tickets and take money
>>>>> from people a couple of hundred dollars at a time.
>>>>>
>>>>> So unless the truth is that you and your fellow officers don't really
>>>>> care about stopping speeding and saving lives, and the whole public
>>>>> safety spiel is just a PR cover for a revenue grab, there's nothing
>>>>> stupid about what the defendant did at all, is there, Officer?
>>>>
>>>> Might depend on whether the speed trap was a routine revenue extraction
>>>> or a response to complaints by residents with children.
>>>
>>> It was on a freeway. If kids are playing on and around a freeway, those
>>> residents should be arrested for child endangerment and neglect and if
>>> kids were indeed present, the defendant *still* would have been doing
>>> the right thing encouraging other drivers to slow down.
>>
>> Okay. Then, back to your court proceeding, it seems a prosecutor could
>> redirect that the practice of warning other motorists of a speed-trap
>> actually makes them generally more fearless, i.e., encouraged to speed.
>
> Not really because that warning can't be depended upon. Sure, you got
> warned this time but you know that you can't count on that happening
> every time there's a speed trap somewhere.
>
> And besides, when it comes right down to it, IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW to
> do this. There's no law in any of the 50 states that prohibits warning
> other motorists that the cops are trolling for speeders.
>
> There was a case of a guy in Austin back when I was in college there
> (late 80s) who stood on the side of the road holding up a sign that said
> "Police speed trap ahead". Of course that pissed the cops off, who
> arrested him on an obstruction charge. Judge dismissed it as protected
> speech under the 1st Amendment-- both under the Free Speech Clause and
> the Redress Clause.

I don't see how this differs from the use of "fuzzbuster" dashboard
radar-detectors, illegal at one time anyway iirc.

In article <W9CyL.407161$vBI8.276546@fx15.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/20/2023 1:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <a3AyL.407031$vBI8.51482@fx15.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/20/2023 11:48 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <_PyyL.405779$vBI8.270755@fx15.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/19/2023 9:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Fortunately, this case kinda went viral and a civil rights lawyer
> >>>>> contacted the driver and took his case on appeal pro bono, at which
> >>>>> all charges were dismissed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would love to have gotten Officer Tackleberry on the stand:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When you stopped the defendant you said flashing his lights was stupid,
> >>>>> isn't that right? Given the police department's public rationale for
> >>>>> these speed traps, why is it stupid? When your chief gets on TV with all
> >>>>> the stars on his collar and talks about these initiatives, isn't it the
> >>>>> stated goal to encourage people to slow down, obey the law, and save
> >>>>> ives?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, flashing headlights does just that. It encourages people to slow
> >>>>> down and obey the law. Seems like you and the defendant are on the same
> >>>>> team here, no? The only thing the defendant's actions deprived you of is
> >>>>> revenue. It robbed you of the ability to write tickets and take money
> >>>>> from people a couple of hundred dollars at a time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So unless the truth is that you and your fellow officers don't really
> >>>>> care about stopping speeding and saving lives, and the whole public
> >>>>> safety spiel is just a PR cover for a revenue grab, there's nothing
> >>>>> stupid about what the defendant did at all, is there, Officer?
> >>>>
> >>>> Might depend on whether the speed trap was a routine revenue extraction
> >>>> or a response to complaints by residents with children.
> >>>
> >>> It was on a freeway. If kids are playing on and around a freeway, those
> >>> residents should be arrested for child endangerment and neglect and if
> >>> kids were indeed present, the defendant *still* would have been doing
> >>> the right thing encouraging other drivers to slow down.
> >>
> >> Okay. Then, back to your court proceeding, it seems a prosecutor could
> >> redirect that the practice of warning other motorists of a speed-trap
> >> actually makes them generally more fearless, i.e., encouraged to speed.
> >
> > Not really because that warning can't be depended upon. Sure, you got
> > warned this time but you know that you can't count on that happening
> > every time there's a speed trap somewhere.
> >
> > And besides, when it comes right down to it, IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW to
> > do this. There's no law in any of the 50 states that prohibits warning
> > other motorists that the cops are trolling for speeders.
> >
> > There was a case of a guy in Austin back when I was in college there
> > (late 80s) who stood on the side of the road holding up a sign that said
> > "Police speed trap ahead". Of course that pissed the cops off, who
> > arrested him on an obstruction charge. Judge dismissed it as protected
> > speech under the 1st Amendment-- both under the Free Speech Clause and
> > the Redress Clause.
>
> I don't see how this differs from the use of "fuzzbuster" dashboard
> radar-detectors, illegal at one time anyway iirc.

Because back when those were illegal, they were actually ILLEGAL. The
states passed laws prohibiting their use. No state has passed a law
prohibiting communicating the location of speed traps to other drivers.

And there's the added complication that-- unlike the radar detectors--
this issue involves speech, something with which the government is
uniquely prohibited from interfering, so even if a state *did* pass a
law directly prohibiting this sort of thing, it would have a high bar to
clear in order to satisfy the Constitution.

In article <tqeq05$26lcn$3@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>On 1/20/2023 11:48 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>On 1/19/2023 9:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> >>>>>Fortunately, this case kinda went viral and a civil rights lawyer
> >>>>>contacted the driver and took his case on appeal pro bono, at which
> >>>>>all charges were dismissed.
>
> >>>>>I would love to have gotten Officer Tackleberry on the stand:
>
> >>>>>When you stopped the defendant you said flashing his lights was stupid,
> >>>>>isn't that right? Given the police department's public rationale for
> >>>>>these speed traps, why is it stupid? When your chief gets on TV with all
> >>>>>the stars on his collar and talks about these initiatives, isn't it the
> >>>>>stated goal to encourage people to slow down, obey the law, and save
> >>>>>ives?
>
> >>>>>Well, flashing headlights does just that. It encourages people to slow
> >>>>>down and obey the law. Seems like you and the defendant are on the same
> >>>>>team here, no? The only thing the defendant's actions deprived you of is
> >>>>>revenue. It robbed you of the ability to write tickets and take money
> >>>>>from people a couple of hundred dollars at a time.
>
> >>>>>So unless the truth is that you and your fellow officers don't really
> >>>>>care about stopping speeding and saving lives, and the whole public
> >>>>>safety spiel is just a PR cover for a revenue grab, there's nothing
> >>>>>stupid about what the defendant did at all, is there, Officer?
>
> >>>>Might depend on whether the speed trap was a routine revenue extraction
> >>>>or a response to complaints by residents with children.
>
> >>>It was on a freeway. If kids are playing on and around a freeway, those
> >>>residents should be arrested for child endangerment and neglect and if
> >>>kids were indeed present, the defendant *still* would have been doing
> >>>the right thing encouraging other drivers to slow down.
>
> >>Okay. Then, back to your court proceeding, it seems a prosecutor could
> >>redirect that the practice of warning other motorists of a speed-trap
> >>actually makes them generally more fearless, i.e., encouraged to speed.
>
> >Not really because that warning can't be depended upon. Sure, you got
> >warned this time but you know that you can't count on that happening
> >every time there's a speed trap somewhere.
>
> moviePig is doing Schenck here. Mr. Schenck's flyer told men subject to
> the draft to "know their rights" because knowing one's rights makes one
> question coersion by government and not comply willingly. During a
> national emergency, individual liberty is suspended and one can be
> convicted and go to prison.
>
> >And besides, when it comes right down to it, IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW to
> >do this. There's no law in any of the 50 states that prohibits warning
> >other motorists that the cops are trolling for speeders.
>
> >There was a case of a guy in Austin back when I was in college there
> >(late 80s) who stood on the side of the road holding up a sign that said
> >"Police speed trap ahead". Of course that pissed the cops off, who
> >arrested him on an obstruction charge. Judge dismissed it as protected
> >speech under the 1st Amendment-- both under the Free Speech Clause and
> >the Redress Clause.
>
> I wish it were part of all police training that cops become familiar with
> basic liberties too.

It is in our academy. When I was an instructor, I mostly taught the
protective intelligence and counter-surveillance blocks but since I have
a law degree, they occasionally tapped me to fill in and teach the legal
block when one of the regular instructors was on leave or out working a
protection assignment. I really liked doing it. Got into some great
discussions with the recruits, but what I really liked teaching was the
yearly in-service refresher training for the Uniformed Division officers.

Teaching recruits is okay but they're just recruits who are mostly
afraid to be seen as too confrontational so they generally just accept
what you teach without much objection, but the salty old UD guys with 15
years under their belts aren't afraid to call bullshit when they think
you're wrong. Problem for them is that was rarely the case. They were
the ones who were wrong but figured they were right because "That's the
way we've always done it".

My favorite hypothetical for them was: You're working a footbeat and
notice a guy who's been lingering on the south fence line of Crown for
several hours. Wearing a hoody, mirrored sunglasses and a gaiter
covering the lower half of his face. Temps are in the high 50s. You've
watched him walk back and forth taking photos, but not of the residence
as most tourists do, but of the USSS cameras mounted on the fence, the
security bollards that rise and fall as vehicles come through the gates,
the officers working in their booths at the gates, the K-9 response, and
the UD shift changes. What do you do?

I'd always get some hairbag officer who'd say, go over, brace him, ID
him, take his camera and erase all those photos.

And we were off to the races.

> It would have been truly amusing if the sign said "Obey the speed limit.
> Speed trap ahead." He'd have been arrested for directly telling
> motorists to comply with the law!

In article <tqeqr3$26lcn$4@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
>
> >[snip]
>
> >>Comcast pulls this crap on me. If I return rented equipment to their
> >>location, I need the receipt they've generated to prove that the
> >>equipment is in their possession and no longer in my possession. But the
> >>clerk asks for my signature, which I routinely object to since I have no
> >>ability to supervise the process of completing the process of putting
> >>the equipment back into inventory.
>
> >justfor the hell ofit, whenever I have to sign one of
> >the electronic pads I'll (for example) sign my name AND
> >put "costco" next to it.
>
> That's a great idea! The electronic keypad just captures the signature,
> doesn't compare it to one's official signature. I think I'll put in the
> store name from now on.
>
> >I figure anyone playing games with those files to put
> >"my signature" (and a thousand others) on their invoices
> >won't edit out that additional scribble..
>
> >>Getting the handcuffs slapped on? Cops should be taught as much about
> >>instinctive human reactions as we all learned on Lie To Me.
>
> >How about NOT hiring bumdass folk like this as cops in
> >the first place. (With a similar comment to all the
> >people who want cops to be taught not to be racists, etc.)
>
> Re-education is punishment. My attitude is everybody is prejudice in
> some way that everybody else will find to be unreasonable. The issue
> isn't whether prejudice exists and never will be. The issue is behavior.
>
> There is a police encounter with a member of the public. It doesn't
> matter what the cop feels about the person being encountered. Never take
> him into custody for "contempt of cop" under any circumstances. There is
> no legal justification and the cop simply doesn't have that kind of
> power to act on his own emotions.

And if you can't take being disrespected without feeling the need to
retaliate, then law enforcement isn't the job for you.

(And I always found that laughing at someone who's trying to insult you
is a much more effective 'retaliation', anyway.)

> I'd really rather ignore what a cop says and does when he's not on the
> job that's just running his mouth and not criminal in any way. There's a
> case like that in Chicago with lots of civil rights leaders demanding
> that a cop be fired for having posted on line in forums with other Proud
> Boys. He did get suspended but that was for a rules violation for
> failure to report having been inteviewed by the FBI's January 6th
> investigation for having posted the statements.
>
> Cops are prohibited from having been participants in criminal
> conspiracies past and present, such as past gang memberships. Posting on
> line is hardly enough to prove one's participation in a criminal
> conspiracy.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 19:42:27 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
>
>>[snip]
>
>>>Comcast pulls this crap on me. If I return rented equipment to their
>>>location, I need the receipt they've generated to prove that the
>>>equipment is in their possession and no longer in my possession. But the
>>>clerk asks for my signature, which I routinely object to since I have no
>>>ability to supervise the process of completing the process of putting
>>>the equipment back into inventory.
>
>>justfor the hell ofit, whenever I have to sign one of
>>the electronic pads I'll (for example) sign my name AND
>>put "costco" next to it.
>
>That's a great idea! The electronic keypad just captures the signature,
>doesn't compare it to one's official signature. I think I'll put in the
>store name from now on.

I never worry about it as the signature that I put on one of those
electronic keypads is nothing like my actual signature. It's not even
the same from keypad to keypad. A comment that I've made a few times
when signing for something but since no one ever bothers to compare
signatures it doesn't matter.

>>I figure anyone playing games with those files to put
>>"my signature" (and a thousand others) on their invoices
>>won't edit out that additional scribble..
>
>>>Getting the handcuffs slapped on? Cops should be taught as much about
>>>instinctive human reactions as we all learned on Lie To Me.
>
>>How about NOT hiring bumdass folk like this as cops in
>>the first place. (With a similar comment to all the
>>people who want cops to be taught not to be racists, etc.)
>

On 1/20/2023 3:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <W9CyL.407161$vBI8.276546@fx15.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/20/2023 1:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <a3AyL.407031$vBI8.51482@fx15.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/20/2023 11:48 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <_PyyL.405779$vBI8.270755@fx15.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/19/2023 9:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Fortunately, this case kinda went viral and a civil rights lawyer
>>>>>>> contacted the driver and took his case on appeal pro bono, at which
>>>>>>> all charges were dismissed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would love to have gotten Officer Tackleberry on the stand:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you stopped the defendant you said flashing his lights was stupid,
>>>>>>> isn't that right? Given the police department's public rationale for
>>>>>>> these speed traps, why is it stupid? When your chief gets on TV with all
>>>>>>> the stars on his collar and talks about these initiatives, isn't it the
>>>>>>> stated goal to encourage people to slow down, obey the law, and save
>>>>>>> ives?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, flashing headlights does just that. It encourages people to slow
>>>>>>> down and obey the law. Seems like you and the defendant are on the same
>>>>>>> team here, no? The only thing the defendant's actions deprived you of is
>>>>>>> revenue. It robbed you of the ability to write tickets and take money
>>>>>>> from people a couple of hundred dollars at a time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So unless the truth is that you and your fellow officers don't really
>>>>>>> care about stopping speeding and saving lives, and the whole public
>>>>>>> safety spiel is just a PR cover for a revenue grab, there's nothing
>>>>>>> stupid about what the defendant did at all, is there, Officer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Might depend on whether the speed trap was a routine revenue extraction
>>>>>> or a response to complaints by residents with children.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was on a freeway. If kids are playing on and around a freeway, those
>>>>> residents should be arrested for child endangerment and neglect and if
>>>>> kids were indeed present, the defendant *still* would have been doing
>>>>> the right thing encouraging other drivers to slow down.
>>>>
>>>> Okay. Then, back to your court proceeding, it seems a prosecutor could
>>>> redirect that the practice of warning other motorists of a speed-trap
>>>> actually makes them generally more fearless, i.e., encouraged to speed.
>>>
>>> Not really because that warning can't be depended upon. Sure, you got
>>> warned this time but you know that you can't count on that happening
>>> every time there's a speed trap somewhere.
>>>
>>> And besides, when it comes right down to it, IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW to
>>> do this. There's no law in any of the 50 states that prohibits warning
>>> other motorists that the cops are trolling for speeders.
>>>
>>> There was a case of a guy in Austin back when I was in college there
>>> (late 80s) who stood on the side of the road holding up a sign that said
>>> "Police speed trap ahead". Of course that pissed the cops off, who
>>> arrested him on an obstruction charge. Judge dismissed it as protected
>>> speech under the 1st Amendment-- both under the Free Speech Clause and
>>> the Redress Clause.
>>
>> I don't see how this differs from the use of "fuzzbuster" dashboard
>> radar-detectors, illegal at one time anyway iirc.
>
> Because back when those were illegal, they were actually ILLEGAL. The
> states passed laws prohibiting their use. No state has passed a law
> prohibiting communicating the location of speed traps to other drivers.
>
> And there's the added complication that-- unlike the radar detectors--
> this issue involves speech, something with which the government is
> uniquely prohibited from interfering, so even if a state *did* pass a
> law directly prohibiting this sort of thing, it would have a high bar to
> clear in order to satisfy the Constitution.

I wonder if the issue would incur "free speech" protections if he
instead merely lit a warning light whenever the speed-trap was active.

In article <bWDyL.119428$5CY7.43707@fx46.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/20/2023 3:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <W9CyL.407161$vBI8.276546@fx15.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/20/2023 1:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <a3AyL.407031$vBI8.51482@fx15.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> >>>> Okay. Then, back to your court proceeding, it seems a prosecutor could
> >>>> redirect that the practice of warning other motorists of a speed-trap
> >>>> actually makes them generally more fearless, i.e., encouraged to speed.
> >>>
> >>> Not really because that warning can't be depended upon. Sure, you got
> >>> warned this time but you know that you can't count on that happening
> >>> every time there's a speed trap somewhere.
> >>>
> >>> And besides, when it comes right down to it, IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW to
> >>> do this. There's no law in any of the 50 states that prohibits warning
> >>> other motorists that the cops are trolling for speeders.
> >>>
> >>> There was a case of a guy in Austin back when I was in college there
> >>> (late 80s) who stood on the side of the road holding up a sign that said
> >>> "Police speed trap ahead". Of course that pissed the cops off, who
> >>> arrested him on an obstruction charge. Judge dismissed it as protected
> >>> speech under the 1st Amendment-- both under the Free Speech Clause and
> >>> the Redress Clause.
> >>
> >> I don't see how this differs from the use of "fuzzbuster" dashboard
> >> radar-detectors, illegal at one time anyway iirc.
> >
> > Because back when those were illegal, they were actually ILLEGAL. The
> > states passed laws prohibiting their use. No state has passed a law
> > prohibiting communicating the location of speed traps to other drivers.
> >
> > And there's the added complication that-- unlike the radar detectors--
> > this issue involves speech, something with which the government is
> > uniquely prohibited from interfering, so even if a state *did* pass a
> > law directly prohibiting this sort of thing, it would have a high bar to
> > clear in order to satisfy the Constitution.
>
> I wonder if the issue would incur "free speech" protections if he
> instead merely lit a warning light whenever the speed-trap was active.

Symbolic speech clearly falls under the 1st Amendment's umbrella.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:48:57 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>It was on a freeway. If kids are playing on and around a freeway, those
>residents should be arrested for child endangerment and neglect and if
>kids were indeed present, the defendant *still* would have been doing
>the right thing encouraging other drivers to slow down.

As an 8 year old pretty much the ONLY time I ever "played" around a
freeway was when I daily crossed it. Specifically school was about 6
blocks from home but with the freeway between and a block out of my
way there was an underpass (basically a 8" pipe running the width of
the freeway and reinforced with both concrete to create a level path
and some extra steel beams to strengthen the road bed overhead.

(About 15 years ago they replaced it with an overhead foot bridge at a
cost of $1.5-2M - the pipe I had walked through was laid when the
freeway was constructed about 5 years before I walked it)

On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 12:20:04 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>Okay. Then, back to your court proceeding, it seems a prosecutor could
>redirect that the practice of warning other motorists of a speed-trap
>actually makes them generally more fearless, i.e., encouraged to speed.

So by that 'logic' would the motorist be MORE culpable for NOT
flashing when no officer was around - because if people routinely
flashed each other isn't that what not flashing would imply?