Cops in here - video of kid getting pulled over

[jewozzy]

Not a single lawmaker? I'm sure there are some that didn't vote for that bill. But I will say that the ones that voted for it had no idea about the ruling.


I need to leave this topic alone? Is that some kind of warning or something? I'm not taking my ball and leaving, I'm asking you to provide something that says you are right, and I am wrong. And I'm sorry, but saying "this is what the academies teach" isn't good enough. Post a ruling that overturns the one that is the topic of conversation.

You haven't proven anything either. as with most laws they are interpreted differently. We have explained to you why you are wrong but you don't want to listen to us. You show us proof where you are correct...

[jewozzy]

On the drivers license subject, I have a question. Say that I have a current, legal drivers license in Texas, but I go for a quick drive without it and get pulled over. I know my DL number, so will I get a ticket for not the actual card on me, or can I give the officer my DL number and have him check it?

Failure to present dl is a ticket that's different from no dl. I never give that if the person has their info but could...

[JC316]

On the drivers license subject, I have a question. Say that I have a current, legal drivers license in Texas, but I go for a quick drive without it and get pulled over. I know my DL number, so will I get a ticket for not the actual card on me, or can I give the officer my DL number and have him check it?

[03trubluGT]

So basically this means that if you are driving, you can be pulled over at any time and the officer DOES have PC to pull you over because you haveing a drivers licence was in question. If that is the case why don't officers pull EVERYONE over? How do you determine on sight that the questioned person may not have a DL?

I understand the typical mexican (no offence) you have a 50/50 chance of them not having a DL, suspended DL, or no insurance..But white people?! Obviously you can run the plates and if the name comes back "hernandez" ect, you may have a chance.

I was pulled over by DPS and ran for having a licence plate cover obstruct the first centimeter on the "TEXAS" on my licence plate. You can obviously tell that it was a TX plate, or you are retarded..So knowing this, I can be pulled over at anytime and checked just because the officer chooses to say that he thought I didn't have a DL. Sounds unconstitutional and very gestapo!!

That's what it says.

This isn't a racial profiling thing, it's been on the books for years. It was on the books prior to 1995, I'm not sure why it doesn't show it. I know when I went through Driver's Education in 1985 it was taught to us to always have our DL on us.

This in no way says that an officer "thinks you don't have a DL", as per the statute, an officer can stop to check if you have it.

[03trubluGT]

Not a single lawmaker? I'm sure there are some that didn't vote for that bill. But I will say that the ones that voted for it had no idea about the ruling..

That is the most retarded thing I've read today. So you're saying that the ones voted for it (we are talking about lawyers here) had no idea, and the ones voting against it never brought up the fact that it was "illegal"???

I need to leave this topic alone? Is that some kind of warning or something? I'm not taking my ball and leaving, I'm asking you to provide something that says you are right, and I am wrong. And I'm sorry, but saying "this is what the academies teach" isn't good enough. Post a ruling that overturns the one that is the topic of conversation.

Yea, its a warning, back off or I will e-thug you and brow beat you to death!

You have proven nothing, but require me to prove it? I don't think so. The burdon of proof does not lie upon me.

You're the one so drove up on this topic, how about you prove it?

You have several people on here telling you are wrong, but you still think you are right?

It looks as if you are the lowest common denominator in this discussion.

[racrguy]

Oh sure, not one lawmaker is aware of the Federal rulings, and just passes laws for the Hell of it...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghhht...

And since 1979, there hasn't been a single person that this has been used against that thought about challenging it??

Wow, again, that's a mighty big coincidence......

How is it living in that bubble??

Not a single lawmaker? I'm sure there are some that didn't vote for that bill. But I will say that the ones that voted for it had no idea about the ruling.

Even after the FTP'ers say you are wrong, this is your answer...



By the way, don't let the door hit you in the ass.....


I'm not going to hold a grudge in other threads, but you need to leave this topic alone.

I need to leave this topic alone? Is that some kind of warning or something? I'm not taking my ball and leaving, I'm asking you to provide something that says you are right, and I am wrong. And I'm sorry, but saying "this is what the academies teach" isn't good enough. Post a ruling that overturns the one that is the topic of conversation.

[FunFordCobra]

The PC is enforcing the statute:

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall 1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.(c) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200

So basically this means that if you are driving, you can be pulled over at any time and the officer DOES have PC to pull you over because you haveing a drivers licence was in question. If that is the case why don't officers pull EVERYONE over? How do you determine on sight that the questioned person may not have a DL?

I understand the typical mexican (no offence) you have a 50/50 chance of them not having a DL, suspended DL, or no insurance..But white people?! Obviously you can run the plates and if the name comes back "hernandez" ect, you may have a chance.

I was pulled over by DPS and ran for having a licence plate cover obstruct the first centimeter on the "TEXAS" on my licence plate. You can obviously tell that it was a TX plate, or you are retarded..So knowing this, I can be pulled over at anytime and checked just because the officer chooses to say that he thought I didn't have a DL. Sounds unconstitutional and very gestapo!!

[jewozzy]

Prove it. Prove that the Texas law supersedes the ruling by the Supreme Court. And just because they didn't contest it, doesn't make you right.

No...

[03trubluGT]

Prove it. Prove that the Texas law supersedes the ruling by the Supreme Court. And just because they didn't contest it, doesn't make you right.

Even after the FTP'ers say you are wrong, this is your answer...



By the way, don't let the door hit you in the ass.....




I'm not going to hold a grudge in other threads, but you need to leave this topic alone.

[03trubluGT]

At what point would it be "too much" since they are "keeping you safe"? I call bullshit. The chances of something bad happening are far less than they want you to believe. The chances of medical problems due to excessive radiation exposure for travelers and TSA agents are much greater, and more so the chance of getting your rights violated by unjustly being searched, patted down, groped, etc is definitely not worth it.

My bullshit meter just pegged.


We all know you like being groped. Especially by large breated women!

[03trubluGT]

Me mad about it? Not mad, but perturbed.

The question you asked is what's wrong with the system, no one inside questions whether or not the laws are lawful and just, they just assume that it's legal, otherwise it wouldn't have passed.

To answer your question directly, ignorant lawmakers, that's how this "law" came to be on the books. None of them that voted for the law did the research to find out if it's even constitutional. Why is it still on the books? No one has challenged it to the point that the law would be overturned. But I'd imagine if you were to pull someone over simply to check their DL, and they were aware of this SCOTUS ruling, either you won't be checking their DL, or they'll be getting a payday because you'll pull the "I'm a cop and I'll do what I want" line, even though you've been educated that the particular law in question is unconstitutional.

Oh sure, not one lawmaker is aware of the Federal rulings, and just passes laws for the Hell of it...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghhht...

And since 1979, there hasn't been a single person that this has been used against that thought about challenging it??

Wow, again, that's a mighty big coincidence......

How is it living in that bubble??

[racrguy]

Sorry but you're still incorrect... I'll continue to follow Texas law. I've only pulled over one person for a dl check and I was right so it must be 100% accurate.

Prove it. Prove that the Texas law supersedes the ruling by the Supreme Court. And just because they didn't contest it, doesn't make you right.

[jewozzy]

We have had this discussion before.

The Supreme Court rulings only apply to the state in question and they may or may not apply to other states. The determining factor is how the state constitution is written. The Texas DL check is legal according to the state constitution and so is the DUI checkpoint but the DUI checkpoint does not happen because the legislature doesn't allow it.

For the record I think they are both bullshit practices that belong in police states.

I've only worked 1 do checkpoint before and I will agree there are TONs of better things that could be done with my time than that. I will however say we towed 50+ vehicles for no dl/ins...

[jewozzy]

What I do for a living is irrelevant. Every law enforcement academy in the state is incorrect, according to this supreme court ruling. How thick are you LEO's skulls to not comprehend what that ruling is telling you. Jesus fuck it's like talking to a 2 year old. I don't give 2 shits what the Texas penal code says, because it was superseded by the supreme court ruling. Even in the ruling it says that checking licences at DL checkpoints are ok (and to the best of my knowledge, checkpoints are not legal in TX) because it's stopping everyone. Do I need to quote the entire ruling for you guys so you'll quit spouting what the Texas penal code says? Fuck it, don't even answer, I'll just quote it and highlight the important parts for those of you too lazy to read the entire thing.



Read the bolded parts, know what you're talking about. The ruling here expressly forbids you from pulling over people with the sole purpose of checking their DL. Sorry, the days of your willy nilly pulling people over solely for checking DL's are over.

Sorry but you're still incorrect... I'll continue to follow Texas law. I've only pulled over one person for a dl check and I was right so it must be 100% accurate.

[Broncojohnny]

We have had this discussion before.

The Supreme Court rulings only apply to the state in question and they may or may not apply to other states. The determining factor is how the state constitution is written. The Texas DL check is legal according to the state constitution and so is the DUI checkpoint but the DUI checkpoint does not happen because the legislature doesn't allow it.

For the record I think they are both bullshit practices that belong in police states.