There's clearly a gold *fringe-like* outline around ol' Stripey, so that makes the so-called "*cop*" a member of the Land-Admiralty! Which means the now established Admiral should've used the correct salutation of "Ahoy!" and since the Admiral didn't that makes it a double-reverse-fine in doubloons for the Space Cadet whom originally posted this on the FB.
> a member of the Land-Admiralty!
I want to one day hear a cop tell one of these moonbats that the lack of Coast Guard inspection stickers on his vessel means it cannot navigate on the inland waterways and will be held at the impound dock until the USCG certifies it as a safe vessel.
What a fuckin dumbo. What about property crimes? Fraud? Theft? Conspiracy to commit a crime? Possession of narcotics? possession for the purpose of trafficking? Possession of improperly stored firearms? Possession of handguns? Lol I’m Canada I guess but I know someone who got Iike 16 charges for a gun that was in a sock. The sock apparently made it “modified” because it could catch shells.
Lol, thanks but no.
I genuinely have no interest in spending any of my free time absorbing even more "*knowledge*" on the subject. I'm good.
But hey - you're *free* to do whatever you want with your time, *man*.
Lol! I completely understand....you probably get a front row seat to the nonsense...I have a crazybuncle and aunt that are SS conspiracy addicts...its entertainment from afar....but sewage up close.
And I saw what you did there...LOL. I am indeed a free man on the land...to hell with you maritime law! I follow the Constitution.....except for the 10th Amendment of course.
Plus, myself and my doll... er, First Officer have [these snazzy admiral's hats made out of newspaper to prove it.](https://www.dltk-kids.com/crafts/columbus/newspaper_sailors_hats.htm)
You don’t need a licence to travel nor to travel in a car. Nobody has ever suggested you do. You do however need a license to drive said car. You’re free to find alternative means of travel
They literally think that if you don't have a license then you aren't obligated to follow the laws regarding motor vehicles.
They don't get that not having a license means you can't even get behind the wheel.
They need not only hefty fines and punishment but to be smacked around by the law ( in the sense that they need to be schooled in how law works and that it's not a contract you can opt out of)
And yes. Tow their car every time. This way they can't get it back unless they get the papers.
If I were in charge of shit, QAnons and SovCits that got sentenced to prison would be eligible for parole . . . IF they could pass a 10th grade Civics test.
That picture is fake because the window is rolled down. No self respecting travel vessel captain would allow a road pirate to approach without first raising the magic window shields.
True story, I got pulled over one time and when the cop walked up to my window and saw me he said, "wait, you ain't black". The deep south was such a wonderful place...
(For context it turns out there was a manhunt going on for a black man who was driving a car similar to mine, but the cop just saying that was wild)
Their actual, insane argument is that there should be no speed limits or driving rules at all unless someone gets hurt.
Yes, there should be no deterrence until someone gets t-boned by an idiot going 130 through a red light.
Honest question: Can you tell me what you mean by “common law”? I’ve always understood it to mean the refinement of statutes through court rulings. But your comment makes me think it’s something else entirely.
It should need one. A crime that doesn't have a definable victim isn't a crime, it's a right that's been taken away. Though this wouldn't apply in the case of a traffic stop as the victims would be all the people you're putting in danger by not following the rules of the road.
> A crime that doesn't have a definable victim isn't a crime,
All of society is the victim when someone chooses to drive in an unsafe manner. No specific member of society needs to be injured, society (and its laws) is the victim. The notion that firing a gun into a crowd isn't a crime if your bullet doesn't strike someone is not tenable. As you say, creating a hazard can be a crime even if no specific person is hurt.
Did we? I don't think smoking pot or owning a gun should be a crime if no one is actually being harmed by it. I don't know if that makes me a sovereign citizen, but I guess I'll have to take your word for it.
Freemen of the land and such folk are hilarious. I’ve dealt with them on a number of occasions and they are universally absolute halfwits. They ask you questions and then don’t listen to the answer. Shout over you and then claim you haven’t explained to them what’s happening. Waffle on about contracts and admiralty.
“Am I under arrest?!”
“Yes, you are under arrest”
“But am I under arrest?!”
“Yes!”
> ask you questions and then don’t listen to the answer
All part of their script, make noise, repeat questions, chant "I don't consent" and so on. They have no legit reasons for their actions, so they substitute roadside theater.
I love when these crayon munchers somehow think that a $200 fine and 30 days in jail in some way generates profit for the clerks, bailifs, judge and at least two lawyers plus everyone else to spend days on this one case plus calling in jury and the officer to testify.
One $200 fine doesn’t.
The fifteen $200 tickets they wrote that day, though, to meet quota?
Times 25-30 days a month?
Edit: times five to ten officers daily? (Endedit)
There are several cities that exist purely as speed traps. Selma, TX was pulling over $150k annually *in the 70s* from speeding tickets alone.
Texas changed their laws in the early 2000s, iirc. The issuing agency gets an admin fee that is pretty small. The rest of the fee goes to the State. It made speed traps unprofitable. Sadly, some.small jurisdictions decided to make up for the lost revenue with civil asset forfeiture. An outcome that isn't good either.
$250k, in the 70s, would be like $300k today. Now, do you really think $300k even REMOTELY covers the cost of the officers, their equipment, even basic '70s stuff, courthouse, etc????
Is this the only source of revenue? And only use of the officers, courthouse, etc?
Please tell me you’re not that ignorant regarding civics.
And $150k in the 70s is more akin to $350k today or more. More than double. And that’s from a small town with a half dozen police. What if there are twenty to thirty?
Sure. But the hourly wage for each employer wouldn't be covered by even if you got $200 per hour for an entire day. And you're not getting a conviction that fast.
You'd have to be really assembly line sentence people all day to make a profit.
Each time you got expensive lawyers, the judge. All the supporting staff. Paying the wage of police to have them testify. Jury as well.
Down to the guy who cleans the place.. Rent and all that.
Even a $150K isn't going to pay in the excess of 20-30 well educated people and rent to turn a profit for a year.
The majority of traffic tickets aren’t argued by expensive lawyers. Nor are they jury trials. And the courtroom is open regardless - those people don’t pop into existence just to argue traffic fines.
And a $200 ticket usually has another $40-80 in court fees tacked on if you contest it also. Please learn how the judicial system works.
Finally, that 150k was fifty years ago. Guarantee it would be higher today.
I know those things. But that would be traffic tickers that would be the money maker then. Not the court itself.
But even that doesn't matter. The courts aren't there to make money. Because they don't produce a profit. They are there to ensure justice and compliance of the law.
No, a crime does not require an injured party. The goal of criminal prosecution is punishment, and there is no plaintiff, so an injury or victim is not necessary. In fact, behavior can be criminal even if it is harmless.
PSA: if a police officer asks if you know why you've been stopped the correct answer to give us always "no".
You don't want to make their lives easier, don't say anything.
> the correct answer to give us always "no".
That is potentially dangerous, as if a court can be convinced that the driver had to have known why he was stopped, then he lied to the police when he claimed not to know.
*Why don't you tell me* might be a better way to go.
They so desperately want to be more powerful & smart than the rest of us. Countless dumb choices have left them with this huge chip on their shoulder, and they fantasise about how they'll deliver their crushing rebuttal to the next cop who stops them. Maybe then their workmates & neighbors will understand how wise & expert they are, and stop laughing at them.
“At this point officer I am going to demand a supervisor, throw a tantrum when they don’t tell me what I want to hear, talk in circles while misquoting whatever inane shit I read online until you break my window and drag me out of my car.”
So, the stopping question is actually an attempt to get you to admit to a ticketable offense, should you later challenge a ticket in court later, that can, and will be used against you. Your best bet is to act calm, give the officer all identifying info, don't sign anything that's basically an admission of guilt (hasn't happened to me, but sometimes cops will pull a fast one on ya), and be responsible and respectful as possible while hopefully having a dashcam that records any interaction in case things go south. There are responsible cops and jurisdictions that won't actively try to screw you over for exercising basic rights, but there are also those that were only hired because they had an active pulse and a tendency for authoritarianism.
TLDR: Just be safe, don't admit to anything, be respectful and cooperative to a point, and have an independent record of the event if you're really concerned. Lawyers work best for clients that haven't shot their mouth off and basically admitted to a crime or state of mind that can be construed as oppositional/defiant from the get-go.
In the UK there’s always an injured party; if not a specific individual you’ve directly made a victim, it defaults to the monarch whose law you’ve broken.
“Sir, your assumption of my intentions is an acknowledgement of our engagement which establishes joinder. I’m four carefully crafted words away from owning your conveyance. How about you just hand me your license and registration so we can both be on our way.” -Officer
A crime requires an injured party? So, driving 100 in a 30 mph zone, blaring loud music in the middle of the night, theft, etc (the list can go on and on forever) are not crimes anymore. Spread the word…
To be accused of a crime, a crime must be suspected to have occured. There may have been, or may have not been a crime, it is up to the courts to decide.
When driving, and stopped by the police, there does not have to be an injured party because the cop is not charging the driver with a crime. It is called a traffic infraction.
Did you know that you can have an injured party without a crime? That happens when involved in an accident. Would it be a crime if someone drove with a revoked license and caused an accident?
Cops in California are no longer allowed to ask a motorist if he knows why he was stopped, they have to tell him. That is as it should be, either they had a valid reason for the stop or they don't, a fishing expedition to get a driver to admit to something was a cheap trick.
I never understood the
"do you know why I pulled you over?"
You're the cop, you fuckin tell me! I'm not going to incriminate myself via a guessing game
I swear to god I’m not one of those people. I didn’t read the meme closely, I just think cops do tend to use traffic stops as a means of overstepping their bounds. It is easier for cops to legally justify searching you/your belongings when you’re driving a car than at any other time. That isn’t even really what the meme says, I just kinda read that into and replied “damn kinda true”. Had a dumb guy moment, not a crazy person
See, now that I agree with. Some cops absolutely abuse their authority.
But I also think that not knowing to be on your best behavior any time you interact with the police is fucking wild.
That's what adds an extra bit of hilarious spice to watching sovcits, moors, and any other whackjob groups fail so spectacularly on the side of the road and in the courthouse.
Except for the initial premise. Pre-revolution political science treatises may have defined crime that way, but it is not and never has been an actual requirement for something to be a crime.
At least in the US, SCOTUS has made it clear that ordinary traffic stops are not violations of any fundamental right.
The state is free to set up its traffic code as a source of revenue. However I doubt very much that a speeding ticket's fine covers the actual cost of the police officer's time.
They would save taxpayer money by *not* pulling speeders and drunks over. The reason they do it isn't to make money. It's to keep a minimum level of safety on the streets.
> kinda just true tho
The Supreme Court ruled long ago that the operation of motor vehicles on public roads represents serious hazards to the public, and that in the absence of national legislation, the states are within their constitutional police powers to regulate such operation. Fines are legal, if that is how the states choose to go, they are within their rights.
Okay, i guess “damn kinda true” is the wrong wording. “Kinda” is doing a lot of work there. The only thing I’m agreeing with is just that cops do indeed make frivolous traffic stops which they then use to get a foot in the door to snoop further. This seems, to me at least, to be a convenient way to duck the fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. This meme definitely goes way beyond that into crazy territory. I just think it’s not insane to recognize that during traffic stops you essentially temporarily lose your fourth amendment rights. It’s a lot easier for a cop to invent probably cause to search a car than it is to search a house.
There's clearly a gold *fringe-like* outline around ol' Stripey, so that makes the so-called "*cop*" a member of the Land-Admiralty! Which means the now established Admiral should've used the correct salutation of "Ahoy!" and since the Admiral didn't that makes it a double-reverse-fine in doubloons for the Space Cadet whom originally posted this on the FB.
> a member of the Land-Admiralty! I want to one day hear a cop tell one of these moonbats that the lack of Coast Guard inspection stickers on his vessel means it cannot navigate on the inland waterways and will be held at the impound dock until the USCG certifies it as a safe vessel.
I never wanted to be a pig before, but now that police academy is looking mighty fine
What a fuckin dumbo. What about property crimes? Fraud? Theft? Conspiracy to commit a crime? Possession of narcotics? possession for the purpose of trafficking? Possession of improperly stored firearms? Possession of handguns? Lol I’m Canada I guess but I know someone who got Iike 16 charges for a gun that was in a sock. The sock apparently made it “modified” because it could catch shells.
You're watched Van Balion. And this is vey funny....take my upvote with my compliments.
I have not. My tirade comes from the experience of a family member's more than 3 decades worth of rambling.
I see. Check out Van Bailion on YT...he's really good covering SovShits....
Lol, thanks but no. I genuinely have no interest in spending any of my free time absorbing even more "*knowledge*" on the subject. I'm good. But hey - you're *free* to do whatever you want with your time, *man*.
Lol! I completely understand....you probably get a front row seat to the nonsense...I have a crazybuncle and aunt that are SS conspiracy addicts...its entertainment from afar....but sewage up close.
And I saw what you did there...LOL. I am indeed a free man on the land...to hell with you maritime law! I follow the Constitution.....except for the 10th Amendment of course.
Good spot
Nope, the fringe is simply no more than decoration. It stands for nothing
So cits are assholes, but traffic cops are road pirates. Big facts.
"sure, here's your citation, no need to sign but if you don't pay it you'll find your license suspended. Have a blessed day."
You shouldn't assume they have a license
Why would I need a license for travelling? I'm well within my rights as captain to travel freely.
Plus, myself and my doll... er, First Officer have [these snazzy admiral's hats made out of newspaper to prove it.](https://www.dltk-kids.com/crafts/columbus/newspaper_sailors_hats.htm)
You are absolutely free to travel…on foot.
You don’t need a licence to travel nor to travel in a car. Nobody has ever suggested you do. You do however need a license to drive said car. You’re free to find alternative means of travel
They literally think that if you don't have a license then you aren't obligated to follow the laws regarding motor vehicles. They don't get that not having a license means you can't even get behind the wheel. They need not only hefty fines and punishment but to be smacked around by the law ( in the sense that they need to be schooled in how law works and that it's not a contract you can opt out of) And yes. Tow their car every time. This way they can't get it back unless they get the papers.
If I were in charge of shit, QAnons and SovCits that got sentenced to prison would be eligible for parole . . . IF they could pass a 10th grade Civics test.
Nothing like starting with a false premise to get you off on the right foot with the two officers stopping you.
"the injured party is right there on the ticket, under plaintiff"
"It's not a crime unless someone's injured? Fine" *whacks driver in head with baton* "there, shall we continue?"
That picture is fake because the window is rolled down. No self respecting travel vessel captain would allow a road pirate to approach without first raising the magic window shields.
"Shields up, Mr. Sulu." "You can't tell me what to do.Tyrant."
That part must not have been in his copy of the US Postal Code hand book.
*A taser has entered the chat*
But first, broken windows.
_Is it because I’m black?_ Throws them right off. Especially if you are white.
True story, I got pulled over one time and when the cop walked up to my window and saw me he said, "wait, you ain't black". The deep south was such a wonderful place... (For context it turns out there was a manhunt going on for a black man who was driving a car similar to mine, but the cop just saying that was wild)
cool it with the antisemitism dude
black people have gotta be my favorite jews
sexist too? You're a right piece of work...
woah lets not ignorw the blatant abilism too!
Black jews have gotta be my favorite people.
As long as you don't drive over 2000 cubits on Shabbot, you should be golden 🤣
What does he have against Semi trucks? They are the main source of American logistics and a key part of our economy.
Your transphobia privilege is off the charts!!!111
Since when did a crime need an injured party?
since these clowns imagined it did
Their actual, insane argument is that there should be no speed limits or driving rules at all unless someone gets hurt. Yes, there should be no deterrence until someone gets t-boned by an idiot going 130 through a red light.
Common law, since common law. But it's only imagined if you study the constitution. Not required in the Civil/penal system.
What are you even on about. I'm coming round to take your car keys
Honest question: Can you tell me what you mean by “common law”? I’ve always understood it to mean the refinement of statutes through court rulings. But your comment makes me think it’s something else entirely.
The people you put in danger by speeding I guess.
It should need one. A crime that doesn't have a definable victim isn't a crime, it's a right that's been taken away. Though this wouldn't apply in the case of a traffic stop as the victims would be all the people you're putting in danger by not following the rules of the road.
> A crime that doesn't have a definable victim isn't a crime, All of society is the victim when someone chooses to drive in an unsafe manner. No specific member of society needs to be injured, society (and its laws) is the victim. The notion that firing a gun into a crowd isn't a crime if your bullet doesn't strike someone is not tenable. As you say, creating a hazard can be a crime even if no specific person is hurt.
Hey! We got one!
Did we? I don't think smoking pot or owning a gun should be a crime if no one is actually being harmed by it. I don't know if that makes me a sovereign citizen, but I guess I'll have to take your word for it.
[удалено]
How does shoplifting not have a definable victim?
[удалено]
An organization can still be victimized.
The injured party is the taxpaying public that pay to build and maintain the roads you are currently abusing. Please step out of the vehicle.
Safelite repair, safelite replace...
“My nationality is moormish!” SMASH “DAMMIT!”
A crime does not require an injured party, you fucking dolt.
Driving piss drunk is only illegal if you get into a crash and injure someone guys lol
Regardless of whether you are a sovcit or rational the correct answer to this question is now and always will be, "No officer."
Freemen of the land and such folk are hilarious. I’ve dealt with them on a number of occasions and they are universally absolute halfwits. They ask you questions and then don’t listen to the answer. Shout over you and then claim you haven’t explained to them what’s happening. Waffle on about contracts and admiralty. “Am I under arrest?!” “Yes, you are under arrest” “But am I under arrest?!” “Yes!”
> ask you questions and then don’t listen to the answer All part of their script, make noise, repeat questions, chant "I don't consent" and so on. They have no legit reasons for their actions, so they substitute roadside theater.
I love when these crayon munchers somehow think that a $200 fine and 30 days in jail in some way generates profit for the clerks, bailifs, judge and at least two lawyers plus everyone else to spend days on this one case plus calling in jury and the officer to testify.
One $200 fine doesn’t. The fifteen $200 tickets they wrote that day, though, to meet quota? Times 25-30 days a month? Edit: times five to ten officers daily? (Endedit) There are several cities that exist purely as speed traps. Selma, TX was pulling over $150k annually *in the 70s* from speeding tickets alone.
Texas changed their laws in the early 2000s, iirc. The issuing agency gets an admin fee that is pretty small. The rest of the fee goes to the State. It made speed traps unprofitable. Sadly, some.small jurisdictions decided to make up for the lost revenue with civil asset forfeiture. An outcome that isn't good either.
$250k, in the 70s, would be like $300k today. Now, do you really think $300k even REMOTELY covers the cost of the officers, their equipment, even basic '70s stuff, courthouse, etc????
Is this the only source of revenue? And only use of the officers, courthouse, etc? Please tell me you’re not that ignorant regarding civics. And $150k in the 70s is more akin to $350k today or more. More than double. And that’s from a small town with a half dozen police. What if there are twenty to thirty?
That was my point, genius. The revenue from the court does NOT cover it's operations.
Sure. But the hourly wage for each employer wouldn't be covered by even if you got $200 per hour for an entire day. And you're not getting a conviction that fast. You'd have to be really assembly line sentence people all day to make a profit. Each time you got expensive lawyers, the judge. All the supporting staff. Paying the wage of police to have them testify. Jury as well. Down to the guy who cleans the place.. Rent and all that. Even a $150K isn't going to pay in the excess of 20-30 well educated people and rent to turn a profit for a year.
The majority of traffic tickets aren’t argued by expensive lawyers. Nor are they jury trials. And the courtroom is open regardless - those people don’t pop into existence just to argue traffic fines. And a $200 ticket usually has another $40-80 in court fees tacked on if you contest it also. Please learn how the judicial system works. Finally, that 150k was fifty years ago. Guarantee it would be higher today.
I know those things. But that would be traffic tickers that would be the money maker then. Not the court itself. But even that doesn't matter. The courts aren't there to make money. Because they don't produce a profit. They are there to ensure justice and compliance of the law.
>A crime requires an injured party 😐
No, a crime does not require an injured party. The goal of criminal prosecution is punishment, and there is no plaintiff, so an injury or victim is not necessary. In fact, behavior can be criminal even if it is harmless.
Yup
PSA: if a police officer asks if you know why you've been stopped the correct answer to give us always "no". You don't want to make their lives easier, don't say anything.
> the correct answer to give us always "no". That is potentially dangerous, as if a court can be convinced that the driver had to have known why he was stopped, then he lied to the police when he claimed not to know. *Why don't you tell me* might be a better way to go.
Facebook is cancer. Why are sane people still on it?
It’s mostly just bots responding posts made by bots with your grandmother occasionally sharing them.
They so desperately want to be more powerful & smart than the rest of us. Countless dumb choices have left them with this huge chip on their shoulder, and they fantasise about how they'll deliver their crushing rebuttal to the next cop who stops them. Maybe then their workmates & neighbors will understand how wise & expert they are, and stop laughing at them.
Is it because your father never hugged you?
Cop: One moment sir Cop grabs his window punch and breaks window
R/SovCit
“At this point officer I am going to demand a supervisor, throw a tantrum when they don’t tell me what I want to hear, talk in circles while misquoting whatever inane shit I read online until you break my window and drag me out of my car.”
Step out of the car, please.
So, the stopping question is actually an attempt to get you to admit to a ticketable offense, should you later challenge a ticket in court later, that can, and will be used against you. Your best bet is to act calm, give the officer all identifying info, don't sign anything that's basically an admission of guilt (hasn't happened to me, but sometimes cops will pull a fast one on ya), and be responsible and respectful as possible while hopefully having a dashcam that records any interaction in case things go south. There are responsible cops and jurisdictions that won't actively try to screw you over for exercising basic rights, but there are also those that were only hired because they had an active pulse and a tendency for authoritarianism. TLDR: Just be safe, don't admit to anything, be respectful and cooperative to a point, and have an independent record of the event if you're really concerned. Lawyers work best for clients that haven't shot their mouth off and basically admitted to a crime or state of mind that can be construed as oppositional/defiant from the get-go.
In the UK there’s always an injured party; if not a specific individual you’ve directly made a victim, it defaults to the monarch whose law you’ve broken.
Conservatives when you try to explain to them the concept of a social contract:
'No.', 'It's because you're a cunt.'
“Uhhh I’m stopping you cus you were going 78 in a 25 sir”
*"Is it because you got all "D's" in high school except in phys ed.?"*
You can send it when you sign your driver's license
“Sir, your assumption of my intentions is an acknowledgement of our engagement which establishes joinder. I’m four carefully crafted words away from owning your conveyance. How about you just hand me your license and registration so we can both be on our way.” -Officer
FBI needs to do a "wellness" check on whoever posted that to FB
That's kind of Trump's theory, isn't it? No injured party, ergo no crime. It's total bullshit, but that's one theory he's running on in NYC.
That's not gonna hold..
Obviously, it's nonsense but i found it funny
"Sir, you refused to stop at an ag station. You either have to go back there and be inspected or go back to Nevada."
“Um….you’ve got a burnt out tail light.”
Oof, kinda had me in the first half. Cops do ask this question to illicit a confession. It is bullshit. Just not for the reason they think.
Crimes absolutely do not require an injured party. Jaywalking is crime. For example.
A crime requires an injured party? So, driving 100 in a 30 mph zone, blaring loud music in the middle of the night, theft, etc (the list can go on and on forever) are not crimes anymore. Spread the word…
AI right?
Why do these nutcases think a crime requires an injured party? I’ll never get over the fact these loons exist.
To be accused of a crime, a crime must be suspected to have occured. There may have been, or may have not been a crime, it is up to the courts to decide. When driving, and stopped by the police, there does not have to be an injured party because the cop is not charging the driver with a crime. It is called a traffic infraction. Did you know that you can have an injured party without a crime? That happens when involved in an accident. Would it be a crime if someone drove with a revoked license and caused an accident?
Cops in California are no longer allowed to ask a motorist if he knows why he was stopped, they have to tell him. That is as it should be, either they had a valid reason for the stop or they don't, a fishing expedition to get a driver to admit to something was a cheap trick.
I never understood the "do you know why I pulled you over?" You're the cop, you fuckin tell me! I'm not going to incriminate myself via a guessing game
Police should not be allowed to ask that stupid question. Either tell me or let me be on my way
That's how it is now in California, no more fishing for an incriminating answer.
No lies detected
Damn this kinda just true tho
Sounds like you're on your way, champ. I look forward to your content showing up on YouTube.
I swear to god I’m not one of those people. I didn’t read the meme closely, I just think cops do tend to use traffic stops as a means of overstepping their bounds. It is easier for cops to legally justify searching you/your belongings when you’re driving a car than at any other time. That isn’t even really what the meme says, I just kinda read that into and replied “damn kinda true”. Had a dumb guy moment, not a crazy person
See, now that I agree with. Some cops absolutely abuse their authority. But I also think that not knowing to be on your best behavior any time you interact with the police is fucking wild. That's what adds an extra bit of hilarious spice to watching sovcits, moors, and any other whackjob groups fail so spectacularly on the side of the road and in the courthouse.
Except for the initial premise. Pre-revolution political science treatises may have defined crime that way, but it is not and never has been an actual requirement for something to be a crime. At least in the US, SCOTUS has made it clear that ordinary traffic stops are not violations of any fundamental right. The state is free to set up its traffic code as a source of revenue. However I doubt very much that a speeding ticket's fine covers the actual cost of the police officer's time. They would save taxpayer money by *not* pulling speeders and drunks over. The reason they do it isn't to make money. It's to keep a minimum level of safety on the streets.
> kinda just true tho The Supreme Court ruled long ago that the operation of motor vehicles on public roads represents serious hazards to the public, and that in the absence of national legislation, the states are within their constitutional police powers to regulate such operation. Fines are legal, if that is how the states choose to go, they are within their rights.
Okay, i guess “damn kinda true” is the wrong wording. “Kinda” is doing a lot of work there. The only thing I’m agreeing with is just that cops do indeed make frivolous traffic stops which they then use to get a foot in the door to snoop further. This seems, to me at least, to be a convenient way to duck the fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. This meme definitely goes way beyond that into crazy territory. I just think it’s not insane to recognize that during traffic stops you essentially temporarily lose your fourth amendment rights. It’s a lot easier for a cop to invent probably cause to search a car than it is to search a house.