More twists in the Walter Scott shooting case

[Citizen]

Incorrect information.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t56c005.php

SC Law, Section 56-5-4560 requires every vehicle to be equipped with at least one rear stop lamp. HOWEVER.....
SC Law, Section 56-5-4730 requires every stop lamp that a vehicle is equipped with to be in good working order.

This was upheld by the South Carolina Supreme Court in (ironically enough) State v. Jihad:
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=25360



Sorry to bust the bubble.

No apology needed. Thanks for digging up the actual statutes. So much for relying on journalists. I added a note referencing your post in my OP.

 

[marshaul]

Not that it matters, but I disagree with that decision as a matter of law. Clearly they reached a conclusion first, and then forced their analysis to support it.

Their construction is not required to ensure that "no word, clause, provision, or part is rendered superfluous", because they conveniently, and obviously intentionally, omitted the rest of the sentence, which reads as follows:

"When a vehicle is equipped with a stop lamp or other signal lamps, such lamp or lamps shall at all times be maintained in good working condition."

It's already a conditional clause. The court either lied, or is inept at basic syntax. QED.

 

[OC for ME]

Two brake lights on the Mercedes-Benz were working when Patrolman 1st Class Michael T. Slager pulled it over, according the dashboard camera footage released Thursday. Police officials have said that Slager made the stop because one of Scott’s brake lights was out.

It was a third brake light behind the back window of the 1990 Mercedes 300E that wasn’t working, the video showed.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150409/PC16/150409311

Any motor vehicle may be equipped, and when required under this chapter shall be equipped, with the following signal lamps and devices:

(1) A stop lamp on the rear which shall emit a red or yellow light and which shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake and which may but need not be incorporated with a tail lamp;

If the report in the local paper can be believed. The "center" interior, rear of passenger compartment, is not on the rear [of the vehicle].

YMMV

 

[solus]

Not that it matters, but I disagree with that decision as a matter of law. Clearly they reached a conclusion first, and then forced their analysis to support it.

Their construction is not required to ensure that "no word, clause, provision, or part is rendered superfluous", because they conveniently, and obviously intentionally, omitted the rest of the sentence, which reads as follows:

"When a vehicle is equipped with a stop lamp or other signal lamps, such lamp or lamps shall at all times be maintained in good working condition."

It's already a conditional clause. The court either lied, or is inept at basic syntax. QED.

we do not agree much marshaul, but we do in this case.

lets just put that sq peg in the round hole by whittling on the corners a bit.

ipse

 

[Citizen]

SNIP lets just put that sq peg in the round hole by whittling on the corners a bit.

ipse

Isn't that how Archimedes determined the value of pi?

I think he whittled that square peg down to 96 equal sides, right?



PS: If you're not familiar with how Archimedes determined the first approximation of the value of pi, its worth looking up. Pretty sharp guy.

 

[The Truth]

That tail light statute is odd. I used to commute between Charlotte, NC and Rock Hill, SC late at night after work and I was pulled over with only one working brake light (no left turn signal, only the middle brake light worked, I would hand signal to turn) in North Carolina. I was about a mile from the SC border so I was let off with a warning and warned that if I got pulled over again that night in NC I was screwed, but that he would let me go because SC probably wouldn't pull me over for it. He wished me luck and I made it home.

Did something change, or was perception off?

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Did something change, or was perception off?

No, you got it right: this is just a pretext to seize somebody and fish for something arrestable.

At the bottom of it, the discussion is really about which pretexts cops can "legally" use to seize someone so they can fish for more.

The proof is in the alternative. If a cop was really interested in safety, he could just alert the driver, "Hey, mack. Youse gots a brake light out. Fix it. I see youse again with it out, I's gonna cite you." He wouldn't also run your info through four or five databases to find something more. And, he wouldn't ask for consent to a search. And, he wouldn't ask, "Where you going?" or "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" or ask you to fully roll down your window so he can sniff for alcohol or weed, or look inside for anything he can use to justify taking it further like a blunt in the ash tray.

So, really what we're talking about here is whether such-and-such false motive for the stop is legally viable in court, meaning can a cop use it on the street to do an end run around leaving decent folks alone aka an end-run around the whole basis for the Fourth Amendment.

 

[georg jetson]

Isn't that how Archimedes determined the value of pi?

I think he whittled that square peg down to 96 equal sides, right?



PS: If you're not familiar with how Archimedes determined the first approximation of the value of pi, its worth looking up. Pretty sharp guy.

Ah... and the CALCULUS is born.