If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
What does and doesn't work is difficult to predict. A nearer example is the
former GDR (communist East Germany). They collected huge amounts of info on the population through informers and the like, and many (most) people had a Stasi file. In the end they could not do much with it because there was too much, including recording where people went shopping and the like. DAS -- For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message ... [...] > Eventually you got so many cameras that it is impossible for any > government agency to track it and the surveillance becomes completely > worthless - unless a crime is committed and the survelliance has been > [...] > What people like you don't seem to understand is that 1984 was a real > crock of **** when it came to the bugs in people's rooms. If a > government, > totalitarian or not, wants to spy on it's citizens it does so by getting > other > citizens to do the spying work. > > Nazi Germany knew this well. They didn't have all this high tech > survelliance > camera crap. What they did is simply control the media and propagandize > the populace into doing their spying for them. And this is happening > today. [...] |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> They cannot gather a scrap of evidence from an inpounded vehicle > without a search warrant. And unless there is probable cause for > a warrant to be issued, it won't be issued. Your entire premise about police not necessarily having free and unfettered access to black-box car data is largely false. What will stop cops from routinely making cursory (exagerated) observations of incidents or accident scenes and hence pretty much always getting search warrants whenever they ask for them? This touches on the similar tactic of stopping someone for a driving infraction (real or trumped up) and then the cop calls a buddy with a K-9 unit who takes the dog for an innocent walk around the car. If the dog thinks he smells drugs, well then what do we have now? Illegal search without a warrant? Probable cause? If cops make up reasons to get search warrants (to search cars or to get black box data) then there should be consequences to null discoveries just as there are consequences to positive discoveries (of drugs, of speeding prior to an accident). There should be a negative consequence to a cop who discovers nothing based on a bogus search by his buddy's K-9 unit. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> They cannot gather a scrap of evidence from an inpounded vehicle > without a search warrant. And unless there is probable cause for > a warrant to be issued, it won't be issued. Your entire premise about police not necessarily having free and unfettered access to black-box car data is largely false. What will stop cops from routinely making cursory (exagerated) observations of incidents or accident scenes and hence pretty much always getting search warrants whenever they ask for them? This touches on the similar tactic of stopping someone for a driving infraction (real or trumped up) and then the cop calls a buddy with a K-9 unit who takes the dog for an innocent walk around the car. If the dog thinks he smells drugs, well then what do we have now? Illegal search without a warrant? Probable cause? If cops make up reasons to get search warrants (to search cars or to get black box data) then there should be consequences to null discoveries just as there are consequences to positive discoveries (of drugs, of speeding prior to an accident). There should be a negative consequence to a cop who discovers nothing based on a bogus search by his buddy's K-9 unit. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"MoPar Man" > wrote in message ... > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > They cannot gather a scrap of evidence from an inpounded vehicle > > without a search warrant. And unless there is probable cause for > > a warrant to be issued, it won't be issued. > > Your entire premise about police not necessarily having free and > unfettered access to black-box car data is largely false. > > What will stop cops from routinely making cursory (exagerated) > observations of incidents or accident scenes and hence pretty much > always getting search warrants whenever they ask for them? > How many judges are going to put up with constant and unending requests from a cop for search warrants which end up never panning out? The current court system, which is really overloaded as it is, does not have time for this. Not to mention that you have to have suspicion/evidence of criminal activity to get a warrant in the first place, and speeding isn't a crime, it's an infraction. I don't think there are going to be many judges out there who are going to be issuing warrants to cops that want a warrant just so they can check the black box to see if someone's been speeding, when there are no injuries or fatalities in the accident. And if they do, then vote them out of office, these judges are elected, after all. > This touches on the similar tactic of stopping someone for a driving > infraction (real or trumped up) and then the cop calls a buddy with a > K-9 unit who takes the dog for an innocent walk around the car. If Sure, that happens. I won't deny this. Is this a bad thing? It is if your carrying drugs. > the dog thinks he smells drugs, well then what do we have now? > Illegal search without a warrant? Probable cause? > They still have to get a warrant. What usually happens is everyone sits cooling their heels until they get one. I think if you bother to look you will find that cases of drug sniffing dogs indicating drugs when there aren't any, are pretty rare. > If cops make up reasons to get search warrants (to search cars or to > get black box data) then there should be consequences to null > discoveries just as there are consequences to positive discoveries (of > drugs, of speeding prior to an accident). > > There should be a negative consequence to a cop who discovers nothing > based on a bogus search by his buddy's K-9 unit. There is. While he's wasting time doing that, someone else with drugs is getting away with it. What do you think happens to cops that spend their entire days calling out the K9 units and then coming back with nothing all of the time? Don't you think the K9 units have better things to do? Do you really think that their supervisors are going to continue to let them run these wild goose chases while other officers on the force who are actually doing their job, and are also calling in for those K9 units, and they are actually using them to find real drugs? And, if there's a hint of race discrimination going on here, such as if you got a cop that only stops black people and always calls for k9 units for the people he has stopped, then the feds are going to come down hard on the department. Ted |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"MoPar Man" > wrote in message ... > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > They cannot gather a scrap of evidence from an inpounded vehicle > > without a search warrant. And unless there is probable cause for > > a warrant to be issued, it won't be issued. > > Your entire premise about police not necessarily having free and > unfettered access to black-box car data is largely false. > > What will stop cops from routinely making cursory (exagerated) > observations of incidents or accident scenes and hence pretty much > always getting search warrants whenever they ask for them? > How many judges are going to put up with constant and unending requests from a cop for search warrants which end up never panning out? The current court system, which is really overloaded as it is, does not have time for this. Not to mention that you have to have suspicion/evidence of criminal activity to get a warrant in the first place, and speeding isn't a crime, it's an infraction. I don't think there are going to be many judges out there who are going to be issuing warrants to cops that want a warrant just so they can check the black box to see if someone's been speeding, when there are no injuries or fatalities in the accident. And if they do, then vote them out of office, these judges are elected, after all. > This touches on the similar tactic of stopping someone for a driving > infraction (real or trumped up) and then the cop calls a buddy with a > K-9 unit who takes the dog for an innocent walk around the car. If Sure, that happens. I won't deny this. Is this a bad thing? It is if your carrying drugs. > the dog thinks he smells drugs, well then what do we have now? > Illegal search without a warrant? Probable cause? > They still have to get a warrant. What usually happens is everyone sits cooling their heels until they get one. I think if you bother to look you will find that cases of drug sniffing dogs indicating drugs when there aren't any, are pretty rare. > If cops make up reasons to get search warrants (to search cars or to > get black box data) then there should be consequences to null > discoveries just as there are consequences to positive discoveries (of > drugs, of speeding prior to an accident). > > There should be a negative consequence to a cop who discovers nothing > based on a bogus search by his buddy's K-9 unit. There is. While he's wasting time doing that, someone else with drugs is getting away with it. What do you think happens to cops that spend their entire days calling out the K9 units and then coming back with nothing all of the time? Don't you think the K9 units have better things to do? Do you really think that their supervisors are going to continue to let them run these wild goose chases while other officers on the force who are actually doing their job, and are also calling in for those K9 units, and they are actually using them to find real drugs? And, if there's a hint of race discrimination going on here, such as if you got a cop that only stops black people and always calls for k9 units for the people he has stopped, then the feds are going to come down hard on the department. Ted |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:56:11 -0800, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> wrote: >How many judges are going to put up with constant and unending >requests from a cop for search warrants which end up never panning >out? Based on experience, quite a few. In your own back yard, look at the Molalla cop who just now got recognized by the Clackamas DA as a bad actor; how long did that take? When a rogue or lazy cop plus a compliant judge end up knocking your door down at oh-dark-thirty, who pays to fix the damage from the 'search'? Who replaces the time lost? Who removes your frustration, makes it all better? Better it is that this malfeasance doesn't occur in the first place. But, it does. >The current court system, which is really overloaded as it is, >does not have time for this. Nor does it often have time to police the police. >Not to mention that you have to have >suspicion/evidence of criminal activity to get a warrant in the first >place, and speeding isn't a crime, it's an infraction. I don't think there >are going to be many judges out there who are going to be issuing >warrants to cops that want a warrant just so they can check the >black box to see if someone's been speeding, when there are no >injuries or fatalities in the accident. And if they do, then vote them >out of office, these judges are elected, after all. <snip> Isn't it incredibly difficult and expensive to mount a campaign to unseat an incumbent judge? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:56:11 -0800, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> wrote: >How many judges are going to put up with constant and unending >requests from a cop for search warrants which end up never panning >out? Based on experience, quite a few. In your own back yard, look at the Molalla cop who just now got recognized by the Clackamas DA as a bad actor; how long did that take? When a rogue or lazy cop plus a compliant judge end up knocking your door down at oh-dark-thirty, who pays to fix the damage from the 'search'? Who replaces the time lost? Who removes your frustration, makes it all better? Better it is that this malfeasance doesn't occur in the first place. But, it does. >The current court system, which is really overloaded as it is, >does not have time for this. Nor does it often have time to police the police. >Not to mention that you have to have >suspicion/evidence of criminal activity to get a warrant in the first >place, and speeding isn't a crime, it's an infraction. I don't think there >are going to be many judges out there who are going to be issuing >warrants to cops that want a warrant just so they can check the >black box to see if someone's been speeding, when there are no >injuries or fatalities in the accident. And if they do, then vote them >out of office, these judges are elected, after all. <snip> Isn't it incredibly difficult and expensive to mount a campaign to unseat an incumbent judge? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
don't say a word except thank you
Nomen Nescio wrote: > The moment you sit in your car you are entering the police state. You > don't even have to have the car in motion! You can get cited for drunk > driving even if the car is parked in your own driveway! > > Get used to it. The police don't just come down on people wearing turbines > on their heads. Ask any teen. The police love to hit them for any minor > driving infarction, believe you me. > > As for black boxes, I predict there will be a huge market for factory > reconditioned oldies that don't have those tale tattlers in them. > > I recommend all of you read a good book on traffic ticket advoidance and > weaseling. My favorite include: > > If the cop says you were speeding, agree with him. Then follow it up > immediately, "BUT, officer I was not OVERspeeding!" He might laugh and let > you off the hook. (Its not lying. If you go 65 in a 65 zone you are > speeding....65 is pretty fast, particularly if you strike a bridge > abutment). > > If the cop says he got you on radar going 15 over, tell him, "No I wasn't" > The next thing he'll say to you is "Are you calling me a liar?" Answer > like this: "Of course not officer, but your radar gun is lying (to you). > Its this here radio whip antenna on my car that flaps in the > airstream...the whipping adds 15 mph value to the radar reflection, so my > car was at the speed limit but my radio antenna fooled your radar gun and > it lied to you". He might let you off. If he still writes, supeana his > radar gun and bring your radio antenna to court. With a few flicks you can > get your speed up to at least 40 while standing in front of the judges > bench. > > If you get nailed for "weaving", remind the officer that you are entitled > to use the whole width of the lane. You pull right at night to give more > "leeway" to oncoming traffic because the headlights are blinding to both > parties and more clearance is good for safety. > > Think fast, but if in doubt, say nothing. Most cops ask loaded questions: > > "Do you know how fast you were driving?" If you say "no" like a lot of > speeders do, your goose is cooked. If you say "yes" thats better. Stop > there. Don't say the speed: Tell the truth and your're guilty; tell a lie > and the cop is ****ed and lies won't help you in court. > > If the cop hesitates in writing a ticket and wants to talk to you first, > he's not sure of himself. But if he starts writing, all your talking has > to be done in court. Say nothing but a "yes officer" when he hands you > your ticket. Then go home and plan your courthouse counterattack. Always > plead "not guilty" and demand that there be a judge and PROSECUTER present. > You don't want a hearing officer to be judge, prosecutor, jury and bailiff > rolled all into one. Thats a loaded deck. Too bad you can't get a jury > trial anymore for routine traffic offenses....our freedom has taken a big > hit in the past 30 years or so. Police State. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
don't say a word except thank you
Nomen Nescio wrote: > The moment you sit in your car you are entering the police state. You > don't even have to have the car in motion! You can get cited for drunk > driving even if the car is parked in your own driveway! > > Get used to it. The police don't just come down on people wearing turbines > on their heads. Ask any teen. The police love to hit them for any minor > driving infarction, believe you me. > > As for black boxes, I predict there will be a huge market for factory > reconditioned oldies that don't have those tale tattlers in them. > > I recommend all of you read a good book on traffic ticket advoidance and > weaseling. My favorite include: > > If the cop says you were speeding, agree with him. Then follow it up > immediately, "BUT, officer I was not OVERspeeding!" He might laugh and let > you off the hook. (Its not lying. If you go 65 in a 65 zone you are > speeding....65 is pretty fast, particularly if you strike a bridge > abutment). > > If the cop says he got you on radar going 15 over, tell him, "No I wasn't" > The next thing he'll say to you is "Are you calling me a liar?" Answer > like this: "Of course not officer, but your radar gun is lying (to you). > Its this here radio whip antenna on my car that flaps in the > airstream...the whipping adds 15 mph value to the radar reflection, so my > car was at the speed limit but my radio antenna fooled your radar gun and > it lied to you". He might let you off. If he still writes, supeana his > radar gun and bring your radio antenna to court. With a few flicks you can > get your speed up to at least 40 while standing in front of the judges > bench. > > If you get nailed for "weaving", remind the officer that you are entitled > to use the whole width of the lane. You pull right at night to give more > "leeway" to oncoming traffic because the headlights are blinding to both > parties and more clearance is good for safety. > > Think fast, but if in doubt, say nothing. Most cops ask loaded questions: > > "Do you know how fast you were driving?" If you say "no" like a lot of > speeders do, your goose is cooked. If you say "yes" thats better. Stop > there. Don't say the speed: Tell the truth and your're guilty; tell a lie > and the cop is ****ed and lies won't help you in court. > > If the cop hesitates in writing a ticket and wants to talk to you first, > he's not sure of himself. But if he starts writing, all your talking has > to be done in court. Say nothing but a "yes officer" when he hands you > your ticket. Then go home and plan your courthouse counterattack. Always > plead "not guilty" and demand that there be a judge and PROSECUTER present. > You don't want a hearing officer to be judge, prosecutor, jury and bailiff > rolled all into one. Thats a loaded deck. Too bad you can't get a jury > trial anymore for routine traffic offenses....our freedom has taken a big > hit in the past 30 years or so. Police State. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"mic canic" > wrote in message ... > don't say a word except thank you > Mic, no you cannot do that. The law requires you to answer a cop if they ask for identification. Most of the time the cop has already decided if they are going to write a ticket before you have even pulled over. If the cop that comes up to you isn't sure he's going to write one, if you are not pleasant and you act like a know-it-all, then he's going to write a ticket. And if he has decided to write you a ticket when he comes up, then chances of talking your way out of it are reduced if you don't answer his questions. The best way to handle it is as Nomem says, learn the typical entrapment lines and learn how to answer them. I've got pulled over plenty of times and there is only ONE way that a male driver has a chance of talking his way out of a ticket. (if your female and cute, and you flash the cop a nice pair of tits and a big smile, he might let you off, or if you cry your eyes out which females learn how to do at the drop of a hat, he might also let you off) For men, the ONLY way you can do it is if you know the exact speed limit of the stretch of road, and you claim with total sincerity that you were going that speed. But you have to be very convincing that you are completely convinced that you were going that speed. If you can pull this off and make the cop believe that you thought you were going that speed, then he might let you off with a warning to get your speedo checked, espically if your in an older car. Cops always use the same variant of questions when they pull you over, they a first question: "Do you know how fast you were going" your response: "yes, I was going the speed limit!" Second question: "OK well then what was the speed limit back there" your response: "XXX Mph" If you flub the second question and answer with the wrong posted speed, your sunk. If you get it right the cop is going to say "Well, I clocked you going YYY Mph" This is your cue to POLITELY but firmly tell the officer "Sir I cannot understand how you could have clocked me going YYY. I was on cruise control which was set to YYY Mph, (only say that if you were on the highway, of course) and I had just looked at the speedo when I saw your lights flash. Yadda Yadda Yadda Yadda Yadda..... and so on and so forth. Couple things to keep in mind as well: 1) If they catch you speeding on a feeder road, espically one that has a lot of crossstreets, your chances of talking out of a ticket are just about nil. The slower the car runs the smaller any speedo error is going to be. 2) On the highways, most of the time cops don't take special pains to hide themselves. People are so inattentive, even when they are speeding, that they will look right at a cop parked on the side of the road with it's lights off and not see it. Even a highly visible cop has no trouble catching plenty of fish. 3) Speeding isn't a license to be inattentive. If you choose to speed you need to be well rested, not intoxicated or on cold medicine, and you need to be constantly scanning for police officers. If your paying attention to some other car that is also speeding, your not going to see the cop in time. If you like to listen to rock and roll at full volume in your car, your not going to see the cop in time. 4) Just about every time that a cop sets up to try and catch speeders by the side of the road, his vehicle is VISIBLE IN TIME TO SLOW DOWN. That means slamming on the brakes, which means that when your speeding you absolutely cannot have tailgaters. 5) If your idea of speeding is to get onto a highway posted at 55Mph and never go below 65, your doing it wrong. Good speeding means you periodically must slow down to the speed limit, as you approach areas of the road where there isn't visibility far enough ahead. For example, approaching a turn in the road, if you cannot see around the corner, you must assume there's a cop behind the corner. Driving up a hill as you approach the crest you must slow down, because you cannot see over the hill and you must assume a cop is there. 6) Never speed when you are distracted, for example, there's kids in the car, your running late to an important meeting, this is a surefire way to get a ticket. 7) Never speed at night unless you are 400 miles away from the nearest city on a 2 lane highway in the boondocks that nobody else is on. 8) Never speed in bad weather, rain, snow, hail, etc. as not only is this unsafe, but your visibility will be impared and you won't see the cop in time. 9) proper speeding is much more tiring than just going into autopilot mode and setting the cruise control to the speed limit. In fact, someone who is speeding on a road and doing it properly is a SAFER driver than someone driving the speed limit on that same road and doing it like most people drive. Successful speeders approach it from the perspective that speeding is a mathematical problem. Your goal is to get from point A to point B in the shortest amount of time, which means you need to speed. Getting a ticket takes time so the speeding must be done in a manner so as to avoid getting a ticket. This isn't a game of skill, testing your skill against that of the cops, where you get a shot of testosterone if you are lucky enough to beat the system. This is work, a profession like any other. Speeding properly is a learned skill like any other, and once you have trained yourself to speed correctly, you are in no danger of getting a ticket. Ted |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|