A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 16th 04, 04:08 PM
Dori A Schmetterling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 16th 04, 06:44 PM
MoPar Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 16th 04, 06:44 PM
MoPar Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 17th 04, 10:56 AM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old November 17th 04, 10:56 AM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old November 17th 04, 07:54 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 17th 04, 07:54 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 20th 04, 11:55 PM
mic canic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 20th 04, 11:55 PM
mic canic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 21st 04, 08:30 AM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.