OC and Photography video, Auburn, WA (02 FEB 2014)

[wimwag]

I like the end of the video. "Feel free to do them" bwahahaha!

Sent from my ZTE V768 using Tapatalk 2

 

[OC for ME]

<snip>

I said CAN... I didn't say guys will let you walk away. I personally will. A couple months back I had a car try to ditch me on some streets. When I finally lit the car up (lights) it pulled over abruptly and the rear passenger got out and sprinted away.

<snip>

Then the passenger can not just walk away because they are not the one being stopped.

Your example is not a case of a passenger being allowed to exit the vehicle and then being allowed to leave. It is a dishonest attempt to conflate various situations with the premise that you advance. That citizen exited the car, and fled, before you could prevent him from leaving, let alone give permission to leave if permitted to exit the vehicle.

Which, begs the question, if the driver is stopped in MA, does a passenger need permission to exit the vehicle and then permission to leave the scene? Based on what you have stated, no, he does not. Will you "advise" that citizen, or citizens, to stay in the vehicle? To not leave the scene? Will you prevent them from exiting, from leaving?

I suspect that, contrary to your words on this point, that you will not permit a passenger to simply exit the vehicle and walk away. Remember, you stated that you stop the driver, not the passenger.

 

[Primus]

Is that rhetorical?

Of course he supports the nanny state. They cut him his welfare check every payday and are going to cut checks to him until he dies after he retires. Plus they grant him special Rights that you and I are deprived of (Rights he gets to enjoy even after retirement btw).

His nose is likely so far up into the nanny state the two are virtually inseparable. "The hand that feeds."

Is any of this necessary?

Yea didn't think so.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Is any of this necessary?

Yea didn't think so.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Truth hurts, doesn't it Mr Inherently (bought and paid for) Biased Guy.

And for the record, I don't hate you, in fact, I don't even think much of you.

Feel free to keep making arguments for a totalitarian state.

 

[Primus]

Then the passenger can not just walk away because they are not the one being stopped.

Your example is not a case of a passenger being allowed to exit the vehicle and then being allowed to leave. It is a dishonest attempt to conflate various situations with the premise that you advance. That citizen exited the car, and fled, before you could prevent him from leaving, let alone give permission to leave if permitted to exit the vehicle.

Which, begs the question, if the driver is stopped in MA, does a passenger need permission to exit the vehicle and then permission to leave the scene? Based on what you have stated, no, he does not. Will you "advise" that citizen, or citizens, to stay in the vehicle? To not leave the scene? Will you prevent them from exiting, from leaving?

I suspect that, contrary to your words on this point, that you will not permit a passenger to simply exit the vehicle and walk away. Remember, you stated that you stop the driver, not the passenger.

Listen, I'm telling you we can't detain the passenger for no reason. If the passenger says " am I free to go?" The answer is yes. Have a good day. If he's not wearing a seatbelt then the officer can choose to cite him or not.

This is a GOOD thing for citizens. Not sure why the animosity towards it?

I don't have a problem with passengers leaving as long as I don't think they are part of something else going on. If there is then they may be IDs based on them not wearing a seatbelt. If they are wearing a seatbelt then oh well, I have no reason no right to talk to them or ID them.

This is very straight forward stuff.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Dave_pro2a]

This is very straight forward stuff.

Really? "Straight forward" like "black and white" or "right and wrong?"

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9441539

The tale of the police dashcam video has now helped clear a Bloomfield, New Jersey man who faced a multitude of criminal charges, including eluding police and assault...

It was quite a turnabout, all the criminal charges against Marcus Jeter have been dismissed, and two Bloomfield police officers have been indicted for falsifying reports, and one of them, for assault.

Trust... broken. Again and again and again.

 

[OC for ME]

Listen, I'm telling you we can't detain the passenger for no reason. If the passenger says " am I free to go?" The answer is yes. Have a good day. If he's not wearing a seatbelt then the officer can choose to cite him or not.

This is a GOOD thing for citizens. Not sure why the animosity towards it?

I don't have a problem with passengers leaving as long as I don't think they are part of something else going on. If there is then they may be IDs based on them not wearing a seatbelt. If they are wearing a seatbelt then oh well, I have no reason no right to talk to them or ID them.

This is very straight forward stuff.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You have clearly stated, in previous threads, that a citizen must seek a redress of wrongs in a court of law. Have you not??? I too advocate this, but for a far different reason.

As a practical matter, and by your own words, on the side of the road, a citizen has no rights, other than the rights you recognize and thus do not infringe upon.

How do you know that the passenger did not unbuckle his seat belt after the vehicle has come to a stop? Or, is the law in MA that merely occupying a vehicle mandates that the seat belt must be used?

Is there a MA law that requires the passenger to ask permission, ask your permission, to leave?

I hold no animosity towards 'things", things can not limit my liberty/ I reserve my animosity for those folks who use those "things" to limit liberty where there is not rationale to limit liberty other than the state says so.

 

[OC for ME]

You [Primus] have clearly stated, in previous threads, that a citizen must seek a redress of wrongs in a court of law. <snip>.

Ya know, the passengers are coconspirators in the drivers violation of the posted speed limit. They did nothing to interceded, to prevent the crime, and thus preventing be placed in a dangerous and possible life threatening situation. They failed to bear witness as to the driver's crime that endangered them. Essentially, the passengers are just as guilty as the driver, why else did they not assist LE in holding to account the driver, for his crimes.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/...er-confronting-man-filming-arrests-in-towson/

Early Sunday morning, a man videotaped as Baltimore County police arrested two people... he was confronted by an officer.

“I’m allowed to do this,” he told the officer.

“Get it out of my face,” the officer replied.

“I have my rights,” the man said.

“You have no rights,” the officer said.

But the man didn’t stop rolling...

"We’re not [expletive] around. Do you understand? Do not disrespect us and do not not listen to us,” the officer said. “Now walk away and shut your [expletive] mouth or you’re going to jail..."

“I thought I had freedom of speech here,” the man said.

“You don’t. You just lost it,” the officer replied.

Ahh, land of the free.

 

[509rifas]

Is it different in Washington? Or does it apply?

If you clarified one way or the other would be a lot more helpful to the topic then pointing out what sub forum this is.

And its too bad..... not to bad..... unless your presenting this to a person named bad?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I think the guy he was arguing against was right, but I find it annoying as well the people from other states argue with case law from other jurisdictions in re WA matters. Most people don't realize we got a state constitution with some balls, whereas many states have had theirs castrated worse than the 4a at the federal level.