Beware in Texas: You can be stopped for license plate frame

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You clearly have something to say seeing as how you feel the need to respond to every post in a thread. The only problem is that you could have just said that you think most cops are corrupt and been done with it.

Which speaks volumes as to your motive in this argument; attack the poster and not the issue. Why is it your place to tell me how or when ot post? If you look back, I stay out of a post for a couple days, then reply. BTW, I didn’t address every post.

Quote

No, I'm not in high school and laws DO change. They also change from city to city. In the city that I was "jaywalking", at the time, that was the policy on not signing.

But not signing as a form of protest is ridiculous on so many levels and could result in an arrest. As much as I don’t like cops, I do obey their directions and then deal with it later.

Quote

That's actually not what I wrote, and it was further clarified in a later post. Deal with it.

OK, here it is:
“For all the wackos who are ADAMANTLY against this law about our plates... “

And here:
“Was I talking to you? And for anyone who's ONLY against this license plate thing... it stands.”

So how is my rendition different from your own words?

Quote

So it's similar to you calling cops corrupt when you're talking to someone who's married to a cop? Or when there are cops responding to you? Or is it like when you try to pin the "corruption conspiracy" on conservatives? Is that what you mean? Gimme a break.

1) I didn’t say all cops are corrupt. If you go back you will read that I stated that most have some degree of corruption. I didn’t state, “all” as you claim. And some degree is also a variable.

2) You’re not a cop! You have no, what they call, “legal standing” here, as you are not a cop, not that I blanket defamed all cops.

One break, commin up…..

Quote

I can speak up for people I know when I know what some dude on the internet says is crap. You'd do well to take your own advice here. Are you a cop? Is that how you "know" they're all so corrupt? Thought not.

You can speak up fro anyone you want, but it doesn’t fall under the guidelines of this forum and abuse of others. You can claim it offends you when people call Bush a criminal, but that is too vicarious for the rules of this forum to cover.

1) I didn’t call anyone a name
2) I classified most of the people of a group to have propensity toward corruption
3) You called anyone in this forum who thinks a certain way to be a wacko

Quote

The problem with using the "slippery slope" argument is that you're speculating on what will happen given what is happening now.

No, it’ taking a direction of legislation and policy and assuming it will exacerbate. This is not some paranoia scheme where there is no indication of movement in a given direction, this is an actual case where laws are stretched to ridiculous proportion to further police agendas of zero 4th. Look at Mapp v Ohio, or I will post it if you care….. Do you care? Show me you do and I will find it for you.

Quote

To turn around and say that the slippery slope started HERE, is being naive. I can prove to you that if there were no cops, there would be no cop corruption, can't I?

I have never said that this is the initiation of the slippery slope. Quit grandstanding. So now we go to absolute extremes? Why not say that we need cops, which we do, but we hold them to higher standards as to dissuade police misconduct? If the courts actually prosecuted them instead of coddling them then they would be a group of honorable people….. Truth is that the courts immunize them and they are a group of gang-bangers for the most part.

Quote

Let's not forget we're talking about a license plate frame here. Don't want to get pulled over? Don't use one. Think you're having your rights violated since you can't have a frame?? Nuts.

Now you’re calling me nuts… no personal attacks here. How about this scenario, you buy a new car or a used car, don’t see the plate frame there, then get pulled over. Why even have a 4th if they’re not going to follow it? Oh wait, that’s your argument.

Quote

Why don't people bitch about their right to have a taillight out? As long as one's working, people know you're stopping!

That’s even a weak reason in my opinion, but at least it’s legitimate. Remember, the issue here was about the word, “Texas” being partially covered, not the letters/numbers to the plate.

Quote

Why not bitch about the fact that you can't paint "Police" on your car... I mean... free speech and all...

I’m not sure you can’t legally do that. There are laws about forward facing red/blue lights, but the word, “police” I dunno if there is a law prohibiting that. To paint it in the scheme of an actual cop car is different than just the word, “police.”

Quote

Nevermind, easier just to assume all cops are corrupt and that it's the fascist conservatives' fault.

Well, it’s not the Dems advocating police brutality, the Repubs love it - keeps people in line.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Which speaks volumes as to your motive in this argument; attack the poster and not the issue. Why is it your place to tell me how or when ot post? If you look back, I stay out of a post for a couple days, then reply. BTW, I didn’t address every post.

Dude - you posted 13 consecutive posts! That's about as close to every as it gets. Thought you seemed to miss mine.

Cops certainly lie on the stand, and cops like the CHP can expect to be believed. But that's a bit aside from the question of visible plates on a vehicle.

Driving has responsibility - high on the list be is being accountable for your actions. Obscurred plates allow one to shirk that responsibility.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Driving has responsibility - high on the list be is being accountable for your actions. Obscurred plates allow one to shirk that responsibility.

The need to have unobscured plates is different from a border encroaching slightly on state labels etc. Most Texas plates have a frikin map of Texas in the middle of them and a cowboy riding a horse on the bottom. Stopping drivers for this is bullshit. It's not about plate letters being obscured. The issue is about stuff like "I'd rather be skydiving" plate borders etc. that do not for all practical purposes obscure plates yet is used as an excuse to hastle and potentially ticket drivers.

Putting a smokescreen around the real issue doesn't help. The real issue is how a seemingly practical requirement is subsequently being enforced by pedantic individuals on a testosterone high.

And good luck asking for official clarification, although I guess case law gives us that.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/texasplate.asp

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

You have no right of privacy in a public place. I know that's been proven in case law, but I don't have a cite for it.

Walking down the sidewalk, yes. But your car and you in your car have some rights to privacy / protections against unreasonable search. So I disagree with you.

.

___________________________________________

Your vehicle is 'in public'. Because you are in your vehicle, in public, does not mean that you have the 'privacy' you enjoy in your home. In other words, you can't go down the street beating-off without either someone complaining or being arrested for 'lewd behavior'.
To answer your question in regard to my wife 'turning-in' a 'dirty' cop... she's done it!
I know, personally, a former cop who had an alchohol problem. He was arrested by a 'fellow' officer, processed and finger-printed like anyone else. He went through the legal process and paid an attorney and lost his license and his job. I know of another cop who was highly regarded in this community who, was later found guilty of rape, child porn and having explosives (C-4 & etc.) He is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole, in a Federal prison. You want me to go-on? You bet your ass, cops take care of one another. They also 'weed-out' the bad ones. Shall I tell you of all the good, the police do? I could fill volumes. The good ones, far and away, out-number the bad ones.
It is quite obvious that I am 'pro' police. It's quite evident that you are not at all that 'fond' of the police. That's your choice. History has proven that, societies need someone out among the public to enforce laws and 'maintain' order. You may not always agree with them but, I would hate like hell to see what it would be like without them.
Having been in law enforcement on a city, county and Federal level, I think, I have room to talk.
Now, that I have gotten a very good view of your thoughts and feelings toward law enforcement, as you have mine, I don't feel, we have anything more to discuss. Have a nice day.



Chuck

[Gravitymaster 0]

Good post Chuck, but you know what they say about wrestling with pigs.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Good post Chuck, but you know what they say about wrestling with pigs.

_____________________________________

Yup! Bwa-hahahahahahahahahaha...

Have a good one, 'Grav'!


Chuck

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You have no right of privacy in a public place. I know that's been proven in case law, but I don't have a cite for it.

Walking down the sidewalk, yes. But your car and you in your car have some rights to privacy / protections against unreasonable search. So I disagree with you.

Can you find case law on that? I'd be interested in seeing it.

Quote

Quote

Both Terry and Chimel cite that an office can conduct a search of the person (Terry) and near vicinity of the person (Chimel) in order to ensure officer safety. Those are the cases you would need to fight to overturn.

OK, but Terry, as have introduced into this argument, has nothing to do with a vehicle stop. BTW, Terry isn’t really a search, but an outer garment, “pat” of the person.

You're the one that brought up Chimel - the stated reason for Chimel is officer safety, the same as for a Terry "frisk".

Quote

Quote

Other way around - statute trumps case law as far as the police are concerned - and even then, they have Terry and Chimel to back them up if/when it goes to court. Again, those are the cases that would have to be overturned.

Oh, so your can be prosecuted for an abortion? Oh wait, even tho it is statute in most states, you CANNOT be successfully prosecuted for a 1st or 2nd term abortion via case law. Flatly, you’re wrong, appellate decision has supremacy over statute.

As far as police are concerned? It’s all the same. Fuck, help me please, I’m getting a headache here. You claim that statute trumps, which is wrong, then you claim that Terry and Chimel can back them up. Why would a lesser, in your ideas, entity have to back them up? If statute is king over precedent, then they don’t need precedent as a “back-up.”

Please note that I said "as far as the police are concerned". If the officer makes a bad stop and it's fought in court, it would be overturned.

Quote

See, these cases that are heard by appellate courts up to and including the US Sup Ct render what are called, “Bright line rules.” It is considered likely that most cops, who can barely butter their bread in many cases, cannot read a 300-page decision, so they extrapolate a bright line rendering that cops can understand. They usually contain 3 or 4 small words, so as not to confuse the cop. With the exception of Miranda, where the rights are lengthy but simple, “Terry pat and frisk,” “Chimel bubble” and others represent these extensive US Sup Ct and other appellate court decisions.

That's exactly the point I'm making, above - the cops know that they can pat down the subject and do a near vicinity search to ensure officer safety - so they do... unless/until those cases are overturned, that is.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Trent 0]

Quote

Which speaks volumes as to your motive in this argument; attack the poster and not the issue. Why is it your place to tell me how or when ot post? If you look back, I stay out of a post for a couple days, then reply. BTW, I didn’t address every post.

Oookay dude. My opinion is that you can summarize your position by saying most cops have a dirty side. Did I get it wrong? You can post however you want, and I can think whatever I want about it.

Quote

But not signing as a form of protest is ridiculous on so many levels and could result in an arrest. As much as I don’t like cops, I do obey their directions and then deal with it later.

It wasn't a form of protest at the time. It was legal and the supervisor confirmed it, as well as the judge. I never said everyone should do it. I said it worked at that time, in that city. Are you trying to make it sound like I said something that I didn't?

By the way, that second sentence there is a huge tell on your motivations here.

Quote

So how is my rendition different from your own words?

***you wrote that all people who think the license plate law is a bad thing are wackos.

Those your own words, which are clearly different than mine. Hey, you asked.

Quote

I didn’t say all cops are corrupt. If you go back you will read that I stated that most have some degree of corruption. I didn’t state, “all” as you claim. And some degree is also a variable.

It's a nice try at weaseling out of it. Tell me, if I said, "Most people who do what you do are, to some degree, retards," would you consider it a personal attack? If not, then fine. Then you'll have to accept that my "wacko" comment was not a personal attack since you clearly don't ONLY think that the plate frame things is the issue. Right?

Quote

You’re not a cop! You have no, what they call, “legal standing” here, as you are not a cop, not that I blanket defamed all cops.

Okay, so then if you're not a wacko who's only against the plate law... then you have no grounds to be offended either.

Quote

I have never said that this is the initiation of the slippery slope. Quit grandstanding. So now we go to absolute extremes? Why not say that we need cops, which we do, but we hold them to higher standards as to dissuade police misconduct? If the courts actually prosecuted them instead of coddling them then they would be a group of honorable people….. Truth is that the courts immunize them and they are a group of gang-bangers for the most part.

Who's grandstanding now? You seem to be on a real crusade here... not against plate laws, but against "most" cops. Nice attack on "most" cops again, btw. It would appear that YOU are having a problem with cops more than the plate laws. As I've said a few times now in this thread... it isn't the plate law that is the problem... if there is a cop who wants to get you for something... he'll find a reason with or without a plate frame law. It's no different than a seatbelt law, lights out, or not having a plate in front (in some states). To rail against 1 law is silly.

Quote

Now you’re calling me nuts… no personal attacks here. How about this scenario, you buy a new car or a used car, don’t see the plate frame there, then get pulled over. Why even have a 4th if they’re not going to follow it? Oh wait, that’s your argument.

No, I didn't call you nuts. I mean "nuts" in the "bullshit" sense. If I wanted to call you nuts, I would have. Is your only argument going to be that people are picking on you instead of talking about the issue? It's crap and not true.

And just so you know... I don't know how they do things where you're from, but here you don't get your plates until a week or so AFTER you buy the car. Usually you put them on yourself. But hey, since you're having fun trying to put words in my mouth... go with it....

Quote

I’m not sure you can’t legally do that. There are laws about forward facing red/blue lights, but the word, “police” I dunno if there is a law prohibiting that. To paint it in the scheme of an actual cop car is different than just the word, “police.”

*sigh* again... this is not about one law in one municipality or state. If you're going to complain about a plate frame law, you might as well complain about the other silly vehicle laws that exist. Acting like this one law is a big deal is ridiculous. Some states require 2 plates, some don't. Some plates require lights on when wipers are on, some don't. Some states require a frame NOT cover any part of the plate, some don't.

Quote

Well, it’s not the Dems advocating police brutality, the Repubs love it - keeps people in line

Dude, your argument is OUT THERE!! Wow! Not only is this a personal attack according to your definition (sensitive card played!), but it's completely off topic and doesn't have any relevance to anything in this thread. But hey... that's just my opinion... not telling you how to post or anything.

Oh, hello again!

[masterrig 1]

Sometimes, arguing with some people is like explaining a tax return to a rock.


Chuck

[Trent 0]

Quote

Sometimes, arguing with some people is like explaining a tax return to a rock.

Is that a personal attack agains rocks?

You're right. It's pointless.

Oh, hello again!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I can think of 2 reasons why one would choose to openly ignore the vehicle code on this.
1- they're afraid of camera enforcement, either because they don't trust it (valid) or they don't trust themselves (more likely, not valid)
2- they plan to use the vehicle to commit a more serious crime and want to make it more difficult to identify.

How about not wanting to drill holes in a bumper for a plate on a car that might be moving to a state that does not have front plates?

I have a sports car and I think the front plates look stupid as hell. Why drill a hole in the bumper (Dumb design)? Yes, I am willing to pay the fine if I ever get stopped. OK cop, pull me over. I am not breaking any other laws like having a crack pipe. So I am not worried about a routine traffic stop.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How about not wanting to drill holes in a bumper for a plate on a car that might be moving to a state that does not have front plates?

That's about as weak an answer as it gets.

But yeah, given current enforcement - it makes sense for you to ignore it and pay the rare fix it ticket.

[efs4ever 3]

Quote

They are working on MORE ways to get into your HOME without a warrant also. (Thankfully, the smell of pot emitting from your doorway is not yet a reason for them to bust in.)

[url "http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-502.pdf"] SEE WHAT I MEAN

_______________

Russell M. Webb D 7014
Attorney at Law
713 385 5676
https://www.tdcparole.com

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

That's about as weak an answer as it gets

Weak according to who? You? It is enough of a reason for me not to drill holes in my new car. And I know plenty of others that do the same thing.

So you may consider it weak, but not everyone agrees with your view.

Quote

But yeah, given current enforcement - it makes sense for you to ignore it and pay the rare fix it ticket.

Actually several friends have just pulled it out of the trunk and said, "The stupid bracket broke, I ordered another one off of Ebay, but I think I got jipped. To be honest, I forgot about it Sir."

And if they did get a ticket, they just took the plate to court and get out of it. Or paid the 25 dollar fine.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

That's about as weak an answer as it gets

Weak according to who? You? It is enough of a reason for me not to drill holes in my new car. And I know plenty of others that do the same thing.

So you may consider it weak, but not everyone agrees with your view.

It's weak to use the claim - I might move to another state - as the defense. Because we know that's bullshit, and even if so, it's not an excuse to ignore the laws of your current state.

Having to drill holes is a better story, but there the problem is with car makers selling vehicles that aren't to code. If true.

Since this thread started I've been amazed by the sheer number of cars with rear plates that aren't readable or marginally readable by me directly behind at a distance of a few car lengths. (and the problem is not with my vision) No idea on front plates - it's not very safe to focus great attention on your rear view. It's the pedestrians that need to look out for those folks.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

That's about as weak an answer as it gets

Weak according to who? You? It is enough of a reason for me not to drill holes in my new car. And I know plenty of others that do the same thing.

So you may consider it weak, but not everyone agrees with your view.

Quote

But yeah, given current enforcement - it makes sense for you to ignore it and pay the rare fix it ticket.

Actually several friends have just pulled it out of the trunk and said, "The stupid bracket broke, I ordered another one off of Ebay, but I think I got jipped. To be honest, I forgot about it Sir."

And if they did get a ticket, they just took the plate to court and get out of it. Or paid the 25 dollar fine.

So you condone lying to the police.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

It's weak to use the claim - I might move to another state - as the defense. Because we know that's bullshit,

You know its BS? Do you know where I live or what job I have?

Quote

it's not an excuse to ignore the laws of your current state.

Same with speeding, but I bet people do that as well.

Quote

Having to drill holes is a better story, but there the problem is with car makers selling vehicles that aren't to code. If true.

Oh, they have little dimples where to drill the holes. Firebirds (RIP), Mustangs, Heck, a bunch of cars do not have license plate holders on the front.

But it is such a shame to drill those holes out and then you can never be without a front plate unless you replace the bumper cover. Really stupid.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

So you condone lying to the police.

Is your halo perfect? Have you never lied? I seriously doubt you have always told the truth 100% of the time.

Don't play Jesus or Washington with me.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

So you condone lying to the police.

Is your halo perfect? Have you never lied? I seriously doubt you have always told the truth 100% of the time.

Don't play Jesus or Washington with me.

So you DO condone lying to the police. OK, nice to know that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

So you DO condone lying to the police. OK, nice to know that.

And you put yourself with Jesus and George Washington. Nice to know that.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So you DO condone lying to the police. OK, nice to know that.

And you put yourself with Jesus and George Washington. Nice to know that.

The good Doctor may not always argue from the most honest intellectual viewpoint, but I've never known him to lie...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The good Doctor may not always argue from the most honest intellectual viewpoint, but I've never known him to lie...

So? That does not mean he does not. It just means you have not caught him.

And what does "may not always argue from the most honest intellectual viewpoint" mean? Sounds like you think he twists things to fit his agenda. Thats is quite close to lying.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

So you DO condone lying to the police. OK, nice to know that.

Cops tend to know when they're being lied to. Even if they don't overtly make mention of it or you think you're getting away with it, its not because you have pulled on over on the cop. Typically its due to what you're lying about being so insignificant that its not worth the police officer's time to deal with it.

Like a very minor equipment violation. A lot of officers will take what you say, knowing that its a lie, and not care. Unless they see you a second time after their warning. Then you'll probably recieve a citation.

-OR-

On the flip side, the officer will start pulling on the string in your ball of yarn (your lie) to see what it unravels.


Every time I've been pulled over I've been completely honest and respectful. Why? The officer deserves it as a human being first of all, but secondly, I was raised to be that way by my father to those in authority. Be it a police officer, someone in the military (enlisted or officer, doesn't matter), the pastor, the principal, etc. Then again, I also call my wife "mam" a good majority of the time. I guess having a Lt. Col for a dad sort of ended up enstilling some values in my life.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The good Doctor may not always argue from the most honest intellectual viewpoint, but I've never known him to lie...

So? That does not mean he does not. It just means you have not caught him.

And what does "may not always argue from the most honest intellectual viewpoint" mean? Sounds like you think he twists things to fit his agenda. Thats is quite close to lying.

It means that he argues from data that proves his point...just like we all do.

And, like most of us, the Doc is stubborn as hell. You'd have to give him hard proof to move him off his position. I respect that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

The good Doctor may not always argue from the most honest intellectual viewpoint, but I've never known him to lie...

Nor apologize or otherwise set things right for being incorrect . . . EVER.

. . =(_8^(1)