I dunno if GFactor is a prosecutor or not. When I still did some criminal work, I was a defense attorney. Loach did nothing wrong in his hypothetical. He had probable cause to make a traffic stop, based on his direct observation of the cracked windshield. Once the stop was made, the driver’s conduct created an articulable suspicion for a pat-down, which resulted in the gun being found.
Broken down for you:
Loach = right
You = wrong
Ah yes, where all the taillights are busted and everyone’s last name is Padiddle.
I’m being overwhelmed by the idea of giving a discount to law enforcement in my business. Either that or donate a portion of the proceeds to some kind of police sponsored charity.
Nothing to add here…I just needed to post because it’s the lazy man’s way of adding this epic meltdown to my subscribed threads.
Right on, this is the land of, uh, well it ain’t GQ. But I’m really from Chicago.
And call me names all day, but I will never ever ever back down from the fact that dick cops who pull people for bullshit like “looking suspicious” and dig for “ooooh he has a cracked windshield or his license plate light is out YAYYYY we have probable cause now we can jerk them out of their car and illegally search them” are scum.
You people calling me on “not illegal” - I was talking about the probable cause part. Yes, dickhead cops can always find something, but in these cases, they have to look for it.
I’m logging off for a while, do your worst.
That’s my whole fucking point, asshole.
Yes, he had probable cause.
But he was a hypothetical asshole for doing it.
I thiknk we should create Eleustopia.
A place where there are no cops.
A place where every paragraph is one sentence.
A MAGICAL place where CAPS is A FORM of SANitY.
A mystical place where the imagined is REAL.
This is the quote from Loach’s *hypothetical *example that jumps out at me:
I mean, honest to God, is it that hard to keep your hands where you can see them? You read about this sort of stuff all the time. What do guys like this think they can do?
People are stupid.
And if anybody yells at me about my two-item list, screw 'em.
Ooh, can I be the moderator of Eleustopia?
Look here you little shit, wipe the dried-up cum from your eyelashes so that you can see clearly. A pat-down is NOT a search. 50 other people have tried to get that point through your airplane-glue damaged synapses and failed, so I doubt my attempt will get any further into that batshit-filled cavity you call your skull any better. He condones it because it’s the fucking LAW and he is an officer of the LAW. Kinda makes it hard for him to be against it, doesn’t it ? You are a fetid, drooling boor and every post you make exposes more of your gibbering idiocy. Lay off the crack pipe and the keyboard for a while.
The other day a cop blew away a goth clown who was shooting up a college I once attended, but even if that wasn’t making me slightly more pro-cop, I still find the OP to be an irredeemable intolerable flaming asshole.
Frankly, I hope he gets pulled over a lot until he pries his fingers off the crackpipe long enough to fix his fucking windshield and his fucking attitude. Moron.
So what you’re saying, when you boil it right down, is that you feel that it is WRONG and AGAINST FREEDOM for a cop to take preventative steps for his own protection if he feels that someone is acting in a manner that strongly suggests that the person may have weapons and has a mind to use them on him? You feel that a cop should only be allowed to pull someone out of their car to pat him down if he’s staring down the barrel of said weapon, thus eliminating the reason for the pat-down?
Frankly, your mindless foaming rant sounds like it’s not about the alleged liberties taken, even hypothetically, by Loach, but about cops in general. All cops. Everywhere. Because through all of this angry monologuing you’re doing without much more than a cursory nod to the counterpoints made by – well, everyone else, really – the only impression I’m getting from you is “Cops suck.” That pretty much sums up your post history in this thread.
Yet again, the hypothetical search was 100% legal.
I’d also like to point out that our hypothetical cop probably didn’t want to pull over a person who had a loaded gun and was nervous about it. That’s how routine stops turn into dead cops. I suspect he would have been a lot happier to pull over an honor student who he could give a “fix-it ticket” to, and go on his way.
Driving with a cracked windshield =driving while poor.It will not affact the wealthy or people with nice cars. It will likely only single out people who cant afford a new windshield or car. Therefore it can be seen as discrimitory.
That doesn’t make a cracked windshield any more or less safe in the eyes of the law. A cracked windshield is a cracked windshield whether it’s a '74 Pinto or an Enzo Ferrari. The poor are the most likely to be pulled over for it because the wealthier would have already had it fixed. That’s not discrimination, it’s circumstance.
So you acknowledge that it’s legal, but you don’t like it, so the COPS WHO FOLLOW THE LAW are assholes?
Anyone who does something legal that you find repugnant is an asshole. Got it.
Eleusis, you really do need to take a deep breath. Two would be better. Three would be ideal.
You do realize most insurance companies will replace a windshield for free? So, I would say driving with crack windshield either = someone without insurance, in which case, they shouldn’t be driving or = someone who hasn’t gotten around to calling the insurance company.
Okay, just making sure I have everything straight here.
pravnik provides a definition of “articulable” and the context in which SCOTUS used it in the Terry decision. The conversation moves on to other topics.
Eleusis returns to Lissa’s question to provide his personal interpretation of how police officers use Terry:
(bolding mine) To demonstrate the difference between pulling someone over for a minor statue violation and the kind of “articulable suspicion” involved in a Terry stop, loach provides a hypothetical example in which, following a traffic stop for a cracked windshield, the combination of several specific, suspicious behaviors on the part of the driver lead the police officer to suspect that the driver may have a weapon and to pat him down.
Do I have that right?
depends on their coverage. Not everyone carries full coverage on the vehicle.