“I observed a blue pinto travelling south on RT 66 with a cracked winshield. I initiated a motor vehilce stop. As I spoke to the driver he was visibly nervous.”
I hate you.
Granted, it’s out of context, so here’s the rest:
I’ll admit I’m generally anti-cop, but Loach is generally why.
Fuck off and find a new career, dick.
There are still pinto’s driving around out there?
You hate him (and other cops) why exactly?
Finding a gun later does not make the initial search legal.
A cracked windshield does not make the driver a criminal.
Being a cop does not make you right and/or cool.
You seem to think that “patting down” a “perp” who had a cracked windshield is “legal”.
Well Fuck You, Dick.
I don’t care if I did have a couple grams of pot in my car. (I didn’t)
But you fucking pricks seem to forget about probable cause when it’s people who won’t fight back.
And FUCK YOU for that.
You brought up the cracked windshield so I used it in the example. It was a generic example because you obviously did not understand the difference between probable cause and articulable suspicion. Since it was GQ I attempted to make you less ignorant. I failed. As for the rest here was my reply. I’m done with you.
And thanks for my first pitting.
So you’re pitting a police officer who would make a legal traffic stop and then in response to a driver acting suspiciously executes a legal patdown to preserve his own safety. And on top of that you make completely unfounded assumptions, in a GQ thread where they absolutely do not belong, that he’s motivated by race.
I have no particular love for cops either but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the scenario Loach laid out.
You’re a dickhead fucking poster.
Wait, what did Loach do wrong here? He performed a routine traffic stop, the guy looked distinctly nervous, and Loach found a gun. I’m not seeing Teh Great Injustice here.
Mostly the reasons quoted but also because he’s a dick in gereral.
He thinks it’s right to pull people over and search their cars because they “are nervous” and/or “look suspicious”.
So you think if somebody has a cracked windshield, they should get pulled over and searched?
Reading for comprehension is not one of your strengths is it?
And what bearing does the gun really have on the illegal search?
I have guns too.
No, a reasonable articulable suspicion (driver was nervous, aggressive posture, refused to keep hands away from waistband despite repeated instructions to do so) does.
Learn to read.
I suggest you go for a lie-down Eleusis, because if the SDMB-cops come cruising 'round HERE, you’re going to be in for a smackdown yer’self for posting such a stupid fucking pit-thread.
Fuck off.
I’ve always had respect for cops until you.
Well, I doubt it.
But I won’t miss it that much anyway.
So SMACK ME DOWN.
Come again?
You of all people around here are one of the most pro citizens rights.
Therefore you know that the Supreme Court has ruled that a traffic stop is not grounds for a drug search.
Even if you your “eyes dart around” or you “seem nervous”.
The fact that asshat Loach claims to have found a gun is ir-fucking-relevant.
An illegal search is an illegal search.
And fuck the judge too for allowing it.
Am I the only one who thinks there is a little more to the OP than meets the eye? I think there might be a little bit of history we don’t know about…
Words have meaning. Legal words have very specific meanings. Search and pat down do not have the same legal meaning. Probable cause and articulable suspicion do not mean the same thing. There is a small group of people who like to write about these things, we like to call them the Supreme Court. You might want to do some reading before you jump into a thread. You were showing your ignorance in a GQ thread. I tried to clarify a point using a generic example. You decided to shit all over a GQ thread. But appartently I’m the dickhead. Again I’ll say if you have a problem with anything I have ever doen in my life go ahead and rip me apart. Someone else gave you a ticket you don’t you deserved? Boo fucking hoo.