pulled over for "dark license plate cover"

[joergasm]

Originally Posted by edocura

I did just ask what the definition was. That's me trying to figure out how he defines it.



I think impaired people do. If you drink and aren't impaired (whether that's possible or not is a different thing and completely tangential to what I'm saying since this is a semantical example), then being "drunk" - again, in this example - doesn't mean anything.

But I digress, I guess people can't step away from this example and understand what I'm actually saying. No point repeating myself again.

I think what your trying to get(any one point that I agree with(if I am understanding it right)

If a cop pulls you over because you seem impaired, and you're not then they should be like "alright that's good sir move along sorry for the trouble" and not pick at you and be like "aww shit he's not drunk, what anything else we can nab him for to make this stop useful on our end, lets think/dig"

Or if the cop were to 'stereotype' sports cars/import cars/race cars etc. to young offenders or people that speed or that do/have illegal stuff and find any reason to try to pull you over to nail you for something.
i.e. - implying that a car that is lowered, hid's, whatever other small or big mod you can think of has some sort of illegal thing to it, lets pull him over for something small and see if we can find more(something small they they would pull over a regular car with) or even let's say we see him trying to avoid potholes but will pull him over and say he looks drunk so we can nab him on that smoked licence plate cover...which the cars on his left and right that are also avoiding potholes probably have as well.

abuse of power really. but I already know that's how it is and could careless(cause there is not much you can do really except to defend yourself like knowing the law)

pretty sure you're also trying to say how it 'sucks' it short words and sentences that a cop would pull over a sports/import/race car for going 10 over in a 50 when a van or sedan is going 15 over or clearly faster than you and they are right beside you.

i don't even want to touch on that impairment shiet haha

[joergasm]

it all depends on the persons body and tolerance and everything really.
so putting it at 0 would be the safest thing to do. but they know everyone's gonna complain and vote against and just drag that whole thing on cause most people have the usual tolerance of being able to have a beer or small glass of wine(2 beers max) and still be completely fine if not sober really. and they are the people that also like to drink for having that flavour of beer or wine and not to really drink get ratchet or whatever haha

I think the government or ttc should have people that go to the impaired person's vehicle and would drive them home in it. But there are so many thing's that could go wrong with that hah.
:happy0180::happy0180::happy0180::happy0180::happy 0180::happy0180::happy0180::happy0180::happy0180:: happy0180::happy0180::happy0180:
:P

Originally Posted by wparsons

I'll probably take some heat for this comment, but flame away...

IMO, the legal limit should be 0, not 0.05, not 0.08, 0. That way there is zero tolerance for it and no grey area at all. Someone can make a strong argument that they function relatively better at 0.06 than someone else at 0.04, but no one can argue that they function relatively better at 0.XX than someone else at 0.

*edit* - by "relatively better" I mean compare person A at 0.00 and 0.06, and compare person B at 0.00 and 0.04. You'll never find someone who is more co-ordinated/functional after a drink or two, it just won't happen. You could find someone who is better at 0.06 compared to themselves at 0 than someone else at 0.04 compared to themselves at 0 though.

[DAN_BRZ]

cops will look for any reason to pull u over, lic plate covers are illegal, even though they sell them at crappy tire. i mean its not like we are driving a civic coppers.

[BlueSTaR]

headlikeahole seems like a reasonable officer actually looking out for the good of society.

I think the beef we have with him, is that in our experience, it's 50/50 whether they're out to help, or a Police Officer because they have some alpha-male-douchebag complex that they never got over fucking people over in highschool.

Girlfriend got a ticket for no seatbelt, while wearing a seatbelt, a few months back. For example.

[uEih]

Don't mean to bump this but it's better than starting a whole new thread, I don't wanna run a front plate but I rather have one than none so I was thinking of getting a tinted cover just on the front plate to allow it to have that plateless look still. Does anyone do this? If so how did it go? The back will still be have no covers.

[Pbrown]

Tinted on the front, clear on the back. Police officer saw my fronts, followed me into my parking lot at work, saw the clear rear covers and just circled the car and drove away, plus the fact that I was twice his age probably helped as well.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by wparsons

I'll probably take some heat for this comment, but flame away...

IMO, the legal limit should be 0, not 0.05, not 0.08, 0. That way there is zero tolerance for it and no grey area at all. Someone can make a strong argument that they function relatively better at 0.06 than someone else at 0.04, but no one can argue that they function relatively better at 0.XX than someone else at 0.

*edit* - by "relatively better" I mean compare person A at 0.00 and 0.06, and compare person B at 0.00 and 0.04. You'll never find someone who is more co-ordinated/functional after a drink or two, it just won't happen. You could find someone who is better at 0.06 compared to themselves at 0 than someone else at 0.04 compared to themselves at 0 though.

This is incorrect scientifically. These ideas result from government brainwashing.

You can be more impaired by having a fight with your girlfriend, not sleeping properly the night before, making a hands free phone call.

Almost nobody is impaired at .05 blood alcohol level.

Objective testing demonstrates very little if any effect on driving skill or judgment at blood alcohol levels under .05. In fact, some drive better, objectively.

This misunderstanding comes from a strange belief that driving is a difficult task. It isn't or most people couldn't do it. Just about everybody can drive a car.

Now it is true that many drivers are worse at driving when they are sober than I am when I am quite drunk but that isn't an argument for zero tolerance in this area of incompetence.

A legal limit of .08 is enough. Anything lower turns good citizens into criminals for no good reason.

[RFB]

Just so that you are aware -

In Bantario - under the H.T.A., and supported by the higher courts -

A tail light chaser does NOT need reasonable and probable grounds, OR an H.T.A. violation to deprive you of your freedom with a traffic stop.

Courts have upheld a ruling which allows cops to stop you for the simple reason of looking at your drivers licence (even though they can verify your licence on their M.D.T.'S without stopping you !)



And oh yeah - tis the season - SPOT CHECKS !

[headlikeahole]

Originally Posted by RFB

Just so that you are aware -

In Bantario - under the H.T.A., and supported by the higher courts -

A tail light chaser does NOT need reasonable and probable grounds, OR an H.T.A. violation to deprive you of your freedom with a traffic stop.

Courts have upheld a ruling which allows cops to stop you for the simple reason of looking at your drivers licence (even though they can verify your licence on their M.D.T.'S without stopping you !)



And oh yeah - tis the season - SPOT CHECKS !

1. Why would it matter that the police can stop you to check your documents if you're not doing anything wrong. From my MDT I cant tell who's driving the vehicle, if they have valid insurance, or if the documents are in the vehicle as is required by law.

2. Leave your "freedoms" out of this. Driving on public roads is not a freedom or a right, its a privilege. When you pay for registration you are paying to use the roads, much like a ski pass allows you to use the mountain.

3. Random spot checks may very well have saved your life, or the life of a loved one.

People have so little understanding or appreciation for what police officers do. It makes me wonder why I even got into this line of work.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by Suberman

This is incorrect scientifically. These ideas result from government brainwashing.

You can be more impaired by having a fight with your girlfriend, not sleeping properly the night before, making a hands free phone call.

Almost nobody is impaired at .05 blood alcohol level.

Objective testing demonstrates very little if any effect on driving skill or judgment at blood alcohol levels under .05. In fact, some drive better, objectively.

This misunderstanding comes from a strange belief that driving is a difficult task. It isn't or most people couldn't do it. Just about everybody can drive a car.

Now it is true that many drivers are worse at driving when they are sober than I am when I am quite drunk but that isn't an argument for zero tolerance in this area of incompetence.

A legal limit of .08 is enough. Anything lower turns good citizens into criminals for no good reason.

What exactly was incorrect?

It's a fact that you will be impaired (even if just a tiny bit) at .05 compared to .00. They might drive equal or better because they're using their full attention compared to driving distracted, but there will absolutely be a measurable impairment. Is it enough to be dangerous, probably not, but that doesn't change the fact that it would be measurable in some way.

As for not lowering it, why should anyone need to have a drink before driving? If you can't go a night without a drink then maybe you have a problem? Sure bars/restaurants will lose money, but that shouldn't be a reason to change or not change a law.

[RFB]

Originally Posted by headlikeahole

1. Why would it matter that the police can stop you to check your documents if you're not doing anything wrong. From my MDT I cant tell who's driving the vehicle, if they have valid insurance, or if the documents are in the vehicle as is required by law.

2. Leave your "freedoms" out of this. Driving on public roads is not a freedom or a right, its a privilege. When you pay for registration you are paying to use the roads, much like a ski pass allows you to use the mountain.

3. Random spot checks may very well have saved your life, or the life of a loved one.

People have so little understanding or appreciation for what police officers do. It makes me wonder why I even got into this line of work.

Don't get me wrong - I love N.S (and da rock {lor tunnerin jaysus} etc.) - But MOST of Kanuckistan's thin blue line have the ability to connect to cpic, m.o.t. etc. for 10-28's (registration, licence etc.) via their mobile electronic abaci.
Dispatchers even have a phone # to check insurance in some provinces.

Didn't know that your budget was that poor -

[headlikeahole]

Originally Posted by RFB

Don't get me wrong - I love N.S (and da rock {lor tunnerin jaysus} etc.) - But MOST of Kanuckistan's thin blue line have the ability to connect to cpic, m.o.t. etc. for 10-28's (registration, licence etc.) via their mobile electronic abaci.
Dispatchers even have a phone # to check insurance in some provinces.

Didn't know that your budget was that poor -

Yes I have access to CPIC as well as the provincial system, and my dispatcher can probably tell me who your first crush was and why she didnt like you back. None of that is relevant if the registered owner isn't the one driving. It also doesn't mean the person has the proper paper work in the vehicle.

[RFB]

Originally Posted by headlikeahole

Yes I have access to CPIC as well as the provincial system, and my dispatcher can probably tell me who your first crush was and why she didnt like you back. None of that is relevant if the registered owner isn't the one driving. It also doesn't mean the person has the proper paper work in the vehicle.

NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT !

It's the intra web ! No serious stuff here.

But u do have a relevant point iff'n u dont pull along side and look at the driver to see iff'n he matches before u take away his freedom (as is your legal right to do in the name of protecting the government (oops sorry - the public safety).

But seriously - tail light chasers job is extremely difficult to do because of NO support from the public (inspite of the platitudes) and more importantly the tendency of the politicos to throw honest cops who do their jobs to the wolves for the sake of political expediency and gain.

A cop goes through several stages in their careers because of this. At first - the do gooder who wants to help society (a heroic noble cause ). Then the Wyatt Earp complex (You've seen them young uns - get out of the cruiser hitchen up on their belts, hand on gun), then the disillusioned cynical vets, and finally the speed tax collectors waitin fer a pension.

The best thing fer a harnass to do is to remember the rookie in themselves - then armour themselves from criticism and political interference and ignore it while maintaining a personal prime directive ethic of fairness to the public.

AND STAY AWAY FROM DONUTS ! - The average North American life span of a retired cop after retirement is 6 MONTHS !

It's all a joke peeps - He who dies with the most toys WINS !

[AznKirby]

Originally Posted by headlikeahole

1. Why would it matter that the police can stop you to check your documents if you're not doing anything wrong. From my MDT I cant tell who's driving the vehicle, if they have valid insurance, or if the documents are in the vehicle as is required by law.

2. Leave your "freedoms" out of this. Driving on public roads is not a freedom or a right, its a privilege. When you pay for registration you are paying to use the roads, much like a ski pass allows you to use the mountain.

3. Random spot checks may very well have saved your life, or the life of a loved one.

People have so little understanding or appreciation for what police officers do. It makes me wonder why I even got into this line of work.

Truth be told, the bad/harassing few cops outshine the larger amount of good cops. Assuming you're a good policeman, doing your job to the letter, it isn't your fault & it isn't our (citizens) fault.

That being said, too many cops, in my opinion, take their jobs further than just "upholding the law". Even if YOU think it's safer to stop someone in the streets for no apparent reason, it is still an infringement on their freedom.

Remember: cops don't write the law, they just enforcing it.