If a cop pulls you over...

[Triumph]

In america speeding might not be a crime, in the UK it is, so this thread has been about that.

Sorry, but no this thread is not about the UK.

Being suspicious = probable cause.

ahahahahahahahaha you and your country are pathetic

 

[HAL9000]

Sorry, but no this thread is not about the UK.

I didn't say the entire thread was about the UK.

ahahahahahahahaha you and your country are pathetic

Lol says the American...

 

[Triumph]

I didn't say the entire thread was about the UK.

In america speeding might not be a crime, in the UK it is, so this thread has been about that.

 

[BoberFett]

Nope, I said that's the way it works in the UK, not the US.

You said police need to be able to search criminals. Why would the police need to search innocent people? If they search someone, then they are a criminal. You have been searched, therefore you are a criminal. If you were innocent, you wouldn't have been searched. Not very bright, are you?

 

[HAL9000]

You said police need to be able to search criminals. Why would the police need to search innocent people? If they search someone, then they are a criminal. You have been searched, therefore you are a criminal. If you were innocent, you wouldn't have been searched. Not very bright, are you?

Even criminals are innocent at time of searching... then they find something and get arrested, then get proven guilty... Not very bright are you?

 

[Brigandier]

Even criminals are innocent at time of searching... then they find something and get arrested, then get proven guilty... Not very bright are you?

The brightest person in the world can still have contraband.

 

[HAL9000]

The brightest person in the world can still have contraband.

Very true.

 

[BoberFett]

Even criminals are innocent at time of searching... then they find something and get arrested, then get proven guilty... Not very bright are you?

So what you mean is that the police need the power to search innocent people.

Let's just be clear.

 

[HAL9000]

So what you mean is that the police need the power to search innocent people.

Let's just be clear.

What I mean is that the police do have the power to search people, in both my country and yours, sometimes those people turn out to be innocent, but at the point of the search being initiated it's impossible to tell if they are innocent or not...

 

[Triumph]

What I mean is that the police do have the power to search people, in both my country and yours, sometimes those people turn out to be innocent, but at the point of the search being initiated it's impossible to tell if they are innocent or not...

Thus the police need the power to be able to search people to determine their innocence. So much for innocent until proven guilty.

 

[HAL9000]

Thus the police need the power to be able to search people to determine their innocence. So much for innocent until proven guilty.

How would you propose the system works? People are proven guilty in court, then after that the police can search your car? My system preserves innocence until proven guilt, yours doesn't.

 

[Howard]

How would you propose the system works? People are proven guilty in court, then after that the police can search your car? My system preserves innocence until proven guilt, yours doesn't.

It's the same on both sides, except one side needs probable cause, which means liberty is better preserved.

 

[HAL9000]

It's the same on both sides, except one side needs probable cause, which means liberty is better preserved.

Very true, "probably cause" it's incredibly vague however.

 

[BoberFett]

Triumph, isn't is amazing how he doesn't even understand his own line of thinking?

 

[HAL9000]

Triumph, isn't is amazing how he doesn't even understand his own line of thinking?

What? I don't understand....

 

[BoberFett]

What? I don't understand....

That's the first thing you've said that was in any way insightful.

 

[HAL9000]

That's the first thing you've said that was in any way insightful.

What?

 

[BoberFett]

Go back to stroking your neckbeard.

 

[HAL9000]

Go back to stroking your neckbeard.

Alas I don't have one.

 

[Triumph]

How would you propose the system works? People are proven guilty in court, then after that the police can search your car? My system preserves innocence until proven guilt, yours doesn't.

How does your system preserve innocence, when you want cops to be able to walk up to random people and start searching their pockets? A person can be innocent of any crime yet they can be harassed and intimidated. Gee, that sounds great.

Very true, "probably cause" it's incredibly vague however.

No, not in this country. The rules for probable cause have a long history in case law and Supreme Court rulings. Humans have failings, some cops lie, some cases slip through the cracks, but the rules are clear. And you have recourse, if the cops find evidence against you during a search that was unwarranted, the evidence is dismissed. This keeps cops from abusing the system and stretching the rules. I have to believe that you understand all of this but you're continuing this discussion because you know you are wrong and you can't admit it. Otherwise, you are clearly insane.

 

[HAL9000]

How does your system preserve innocence, when you want cops to be able to walk up to random people and start searching their pockets?



No, not in this country. The rules for probable cause have a long history in case law and Supreme Court rulings. Humans have failings, some cops lie, some cases slip through the cracks, but the rules are clear. And you have recourse, if the cops find evidence against you during a search that was unwarranted, the evidence is dismissed. This keeps cops from abusing the system and stretching the rules. I have to believe that you understand all of this but you're continuing this discussion because you know you are wrong and you can't admit it. Otherwise, you are clearly insane.

I've made my argument enough. I've made perfect sense, I've explained my opinion. I might come back to this later if I ever have the inclination again, but right now this is all you are doing: also never said this

 

[Triumph]

I've made my argument enough. I've made perfect sense, I've explained my opinion. I might come back to this later if I ever have the inclination again, but right now this is all you are doing: also never said this

Ah perfect. The internet forum's equivalent of an acceptance of defeat: when someone says they're done with the thread and aren't coming back.

And yes you did say that.

 

[Zenmervolt]

So to you it's not logical to conclude that criminals commit crimes, and that known criminals are more likely to commit further crimes...?

1) As stated before, speeding is an infraction. We're not talking about even a misdemeanor, much less a felony. Do you have any familiarity at all with how a common law legal system works?

2) No, it's not logical as a blanket statement. There's no basis for assuming that a person who jaywalked also committed murder and there's no basis for assuming that someone who is speeding is carrying contraband. It would be logical to assume that someone caught speeding would speed again, but it's not logical to assume that someone who is speeding is guilty of any other offense. Deep down you're aware of this, which is why you're not engaging me on the issues, but rather building strawmen to fight.

3) You're still dodging the second question. Please explain what, precisely, constitutes a car being "suspiciously driven." This will need to be an objective test that is applicable in all circumstances. Naming a specific instance is not helpful as it does not provide guidance for determination in all circumstances.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

In america speeding might not be a crime, in the UK it is, so this thread has been about that.

Speeding in the UK is a "summary offense," which is functionally identical to a US "infraction." You'd really be helped here by doing even a tiny, tiny amount of legal research.

ZV

 

[ichy]

Jesus, at the rate you guys are feeding the troll he's going to become obese, diabetic and die of a heart attack.