• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If a cop pulls you over...

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HAL9000 said:
Nope, I said that's the way it works in the UK, not the US.
Click to expand...

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?
 
BoberFett said:
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?
Click to expand...

Even criminals are innocent at time of searching... then they find something and get arrested, then get proven guilty... Not very bright are you?
 
HAL9000 said:
Even criminals are innocent at time of searching... then they find something and get arrested, then get proven guilty... Not very bright are you?
Click to expand...

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

Let's just be clear.
 
BoberFett said:
So what you mean is that the police need the power to search innocent people.

Let's just be clear.
Click to expand...

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... 😎
 
HAL9000 said:
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... 😎
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
HAL9000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's the same on both sides, except one side needs probable cause, which means liberty is better preserved.
 
HAL9000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

HAL9000 said:
Very true, "probably cause" it's incredibly vague however.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Triumph said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

dead+horse.gif
 
Last edited:
HAL9000 said:
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

dead+horse.gif
Click to expand...

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.
 
HAL9000 said:
So to you it's not logical to conclude that criminals commit crimes, and that known criminals are more likely to commit further crimes...?
Click to expand...

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
 
HAL9000 said:
In america speeding might not be a crime, in the UK it is, so this thread has been about that.
Click to expand...

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
 
Jesus, at the rate you guys are feeding the troll he's going to become obese, diabetic and die of a heart attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top