MrBeast is knowh to be pretty liberal with mixing CGI in with his videos to make them more “exciting” so take everything with a grain of salt.
Sone of it is real, some isn’t, and it’s not always obvious which is which in any given scene.
Wait, you mean I they can put things on the internet that aren’t true?
Should I cancel my order for the private traveler plate for my motorcycle? $200 seemed steep, but it should pay for itself in 2.5 years of not having to pay for registration. Only 1 year if I cancel my insurance, because no need to swear I have insurance if when I register it.
I put it to my brother this way: a website means exactly as much as a cardboard sign written in marker.
Or exactly as much as large golden letters bolted to the side of a building.
Yup! Which is good to remember when you’re sure that a clip is real.
That is both scary and pathetic. I wonder what went before. Is it a traffic stop or does he have a warrant?
Pulled over for traffic violation (a kayak sticking out of the back of the car more than 3 feet which requires a flag which he didn’t have.
Then asked to step out because he didn’t have registration for the car, he refused and rolled up his window.
Full video,
Seems a bit steep. You can get them cheaper from Amazon. Like $9.99. Although not quite as pretty as yours, it had two UCC cites, not just one, so doubleplus gooder than yours: Amazon.com: Right to Travel License Plate
This is a long compilation, but I just want folks to watch the first 60 seconds This is Deputy Frank Sloup of Pinal County Arizona, and I would just love to see all SovCits meet the equivalent of officer Sloup. Perfectly cordial, but absolutely no nonsense tolerated.
I like this guy, need more like him… I like how he encourages reading the Stoics.
Yeah, and unnecessarily badge heavy with the stupid “show me your driver’s license before I tell you why I pulled you over.”
I have absolutely so problem with police not putting up with the Sov Cit stupidity but why not tell the person why they are being pulled over?
The problem is that the driver felt entitled to assess whether the traffic stop was justified in his opinion before producing his driver’s license. You can see this in his very next response when he says that’s not how this works. But that absolutely is how it works. Once interacting with a driver the police can ask for his license for any reason or no reason at all.
I would prefer that to opening with, “Do you know why I pulled you over?”
My response to me would be, “I prefer you tell me, officer.”
Depends on the state. 22 states have a Stop and identify statute, Arizona being one of them.
The pertinent part is,
While the police officer must have reasonable suspicion to detain a person, the officer has no obligation to inform the person what that suspicion was. The only time the officer would have to articulate the suspicion is when the person was arrested, and the person later challenged the validity of the stop in court.
Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but, in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[15] However, many states have “stop and identify” laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify themselves to police, and in some cases, to provide additional information.
a.k.a. “stop and frisk”—
In 1857 the infamous “Dred Scott” Supreme Court ruling denied that African-Americans were or ever had been citizens of the United States. Among other justifications for this declaration was an enumeration of rights that free Blacks would have to accorded if they were citizens, including:
to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
Apparently we’re still working on it…
I don’t think “Stop and identify” laws have anything to do with traffic stops. Drivers are under special obligations to produce certain documents, namely a driver’s license, registration, and usually proof of insurance. The legitimacy of a traffic stop is a separate issue. For example, a police officer approaching a driver in a parked vehicle can, I believe, legitimately request the person’s driver’s license without explanation.
The mistake that some drivers make, SovCits in particular, is mistaking a traffic stop for a court case. Court is where arguments are made, traffic stops are where required documents have to be produced.
That’s less confrontational than “that’s not how this works”, but probably wouldn’t get you anywhere with this guy. Your preference has no standing if the law states otherwise, and is worth about as much as SovCits bleating “I do not consent to being arrested” while being arrested.
Still doesn’t matter. That’s on the driver.
What about the other drivers who aren’t Sov Ciz?
Note this paragraph in my previous post:
I don’t drive, so I’m not conversant with driver-police interactions, but what would be the problem with answering “No, Officer, I don’t know why you pulled me over.” Certainly non-confrontational, with the implied request for an explantiion.
That’s always my response - “No, I don’t know”, even if I have a pretty good idea why. It’s their responsibility to know why they pulled me over, after all.
The problem may be that the police may see anything other than complete capitulation and subservience as entitlement from the driver.