Cops on fishing expeditions

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:44:04 -0700, Ben > said the
following in rec.autos.driving...




> Nope - he couldn't find his registration at first either, and so the
> cop just took his license and insurance back to run his check.
>
> When the cop came back, he had found his registration, but the cop
> wasn't interested, explained he was simply checking for warrants, and
> didn't mention the missing tail-light at all.

Shows where the police's priorities lie. Racking up arrests on stops for
minor infractions as a pretext to running a warrant check and/or bringing
in the dog to look for drugs. Typical bull**** cop behavior.

The fact that your co-worker got not even a mention of the tail light
saya it all.

BTW, I hope he takes this a a cue to get his taillight fixed.

--
Paul.

Self appointed unofficial overseer
of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving
and holey roamer of the dark side of
usenet #665.9 (gas price of the beast).

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:49:19 -0400, Nate Nagel > said
the following in rec.autos.driving...


> One has to wonder why it took so long for him to get pulled over. I
> would think a completely missing taillight would be a safety issue. I
> am guessing that your friend lives in a state without safety
> inspections? I hope that he at least got a fix-it ticket or a written
> warning.

Doesn't surprise me that he got away with it for this long. I see people
with burned out/almost totally inoperative lighting systems all the time.
Cops don't want to be bothered with it. Just this evening I encountered
an idiot with only 1 tail light working - no side markers and as I passed
him, no head lights...

--
Paul.

Self appointed unofficial overseer
of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving
and holey roamer of the dark side of
usenet #665.9 (gas price of the beast).

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:16:16 -0400, Paul.
> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:44:04 -0700, Ben > said the
>following in rec.autos.driving...
>
>
>
>
>> Nope - he couldn't find his registration at first either, and so the
>> cop just took his license and insurance back to run his check.
>>
>> When the cop came back, he had found his registration, but the cop
>> wasn't interested, explained he was simply checking for warrants, and
>> didn't mention the missing tail-light at all.
>
>Shows where the police's priorities lie. Racking up arrests on stops for
>minor infractions as a pretext to running a warrant check and/or bringing
>in the dog to look for drugs. Typical bull**** cop behavior.
>
>The fact that your co-worker got not even a mention of the tail light
>saya it all.
>
>BTW, I hope he takes this a a cue to get his taillight fixed.


He won't, I guarantee you.

I'm about a week away from being able to give my notice at this place
and I'll have a lot to say about him when I do give notice -
especially the way he ran like a rat leaving a sinking ship after he
****ed up a system crash last week and left me to deal with the
aftermath.

I am so looking forward to giving notice and watching him and our boss
squirm when that happens.

They're both going to be hating life without me.

Around 10/10/2005 10:19 PM, Paul. wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:49:19 -0400, Nate Nagel > said
> the following in rec.autos.driving...
>
>>One has to wonder why it took so long for him to get pulled over. I
>>would think a completely missing taillight would be a safety issue. I
>>am guessing that your friend lives in a state without safety
>>inspections? I hope that he at least got a fix-it ticket or a written
>>warning.
>
>
> Doesn't surprise me that he got away with it for this long. I see people
> with burned out/almost totally inoperative lighting systems all the time.
> Cops don't want to be bothered with it. Just this evening I encountered
> an idiot with only 1 tail light working - no side markers and as I passed
> him, no head lights...

Sounds like you had a Judy sighting...

I'm amazed at how frequently I see vehicles with only one or two working
bulbs in the CHMSL and *nothing* else in the rear. I probably see one at
least once a week.

Of course, popeyed cars are far more prevalent, especially during the
gray of winter when everyone here has their lights on all the time;
you'd think something like a missing headlight would be more easily and
quickly noticed, but no...


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Garth Almgren wrote:

> Of course, popeyed cars are far more prevalent, especially during the
> gray of winter when everyone here has their lights on all the time;
> you'd think something like a missing headlight would be more easily and
> quickly noticed, but no...

Well, my car has joined the "Popeye" club for now. Unfortunately, I'm
not going to have the time to deal with it till this weekend to diagnose
the actual source of the problem (bulb, ballast, or wiring).

It could be as simple as taking care of the condensation problem, it
could cost me $150 for a HID bulb, or it could cost me $350 for a new
ballast (the latter 2 I have to order online).

But, for most people with halogen bulbs, or sealed beams, it doesn't
take more than a quick trip to the local autoparts store and about $10
to $20 for a new bulb/sealed beam unit.

Research before you send, at www.snopes.com .
"Ben" > wrote in message
news
>A co-worker said he got pulled over this weekend.
>
> The cop said it was because his left tail light was out.
>
> Well, his tail light has not only been out, but it's been completely
> missing for about 5 years and he's never been hassled before.
>
> After bringing back his license and insurance, he admitted that "in
> this part of town", he was merely checking for outstanding warrants.

So..... I'm not quite sure what the problem is. Your co-worker was stopped
for a traffic violation, he was checked for warrants, and he was released
with a warning... all of which are constitutional and common practice...

j.

Around 10/10/2005 5:39 PM, Ben wrote:

> <snip>

Speaking of fishing expeditions, it looks like you just caught a
jaybird...



--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

In article >, jaybird wrote:

> So..... I'm not quite sure what the problem is. Your co-worker was stopped
> for a traffic violation, he was checked for warrants, and he was released
> with a warning... all of which are constitutional and common practice...

You still don't get it.

Traffic enforcement isn't about safety. It's about lazy police work
getting around constitutional protections and collecting revenue.

He wasn't ticketed for an obvious safety equipment problem. It was just
used as an excuse to run the guy's papers. Something that isn't supposed
to happen in a free society.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:20:30 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>Research before you send, at www.snopes.com .
>"Ben" > wrote in message
>news
>>A co-worker said he got pulled over this weekend.
>>
>> The cop said it was because his left tail light was out.
>>
>> Well, his tail light has not only been out, but it's been completely
>> missing for about 5 years and he's never been hassled before.
>>
>> After bringing back his license and insurance, he admitted that "in
>> this part of town", he was merely checking for outstanding warrants.
>
>So..... I'm not quite sure what the problem is.


Figures.

You think it's okay for a police department to target people who dare
to drive in certain sections of town using any excuse they can pull
out of their ass while they obviously ignore the same violations in
90% of the rest of the metropolis?

Let me guess, you were that asshole cop on the horse in NOLA trying to
block the cameras from the cops beating the hell out of a senior
citizen last weekend.

**** you and the horse you rode in on.


> Your co-worker was stopped
>for a traffic violation, he was checked for warrants, and he was released
>with a warning... all of which are constitutional and common practice...
>
>j.
>

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:39:24 -0700, Garth Almgren >
wrote:

>Around 10/10/2005 5:39 PM, Ben wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>Speaking of fishing expeditions, it looks like you just caught a
>jaybird...

And I'm going to have to throw it back because it stinks like ****.