Out of state traffic stop

[Bill of Rights]

When there are 5 cars in the county, rules can be more lax then when there are 50,000. When the Wright brothers flew, there wasn't much in the way of laws concerning airplanes, either, but I'm pretty sure you can foresee the issues if we went back to that. That sort of goes to your one person knowing all the law. I don't have to know the laws about airplanes and their uses, because I'm not a pilot. The fact I don't know those laws doesn't mean they aren't reasonable laws, now does it? I don't know much about adoption laws, either. Let's throw those out. Patent law? Nope. Banking, investing, and trade laws that protect from fraud and abuse? Nope. And there is zero way that I, or anyone, could learn all of it. However if you're going to engage in those things, then you should take the time to learn, correct?

I get your frustrated with your wetlands issue, but you know as well as I do that such an oversimplification is not workable in the real world, nor desirable.

So, perhaps, a legal framework of some sort, including both civil and criminal penalties, could be used? You know, a pragmatic approach that realizes that automobiles require new laws to deal with, and that a larger and more anonymous society requires ways to deal with offenders when not everyone knows everyone any longer? And that while all laws cannot be enforced all the time, having an agreed upon legal structure with potential penalties for violating that structure results in an overall safer environment compared to a free for all or attempting to deal with it "informally", which today would likely result in fights and shootings, which would be less safe overall?

Just jumping in with a thought on this... it seems to me that we've somehow at some point changed from a society in which someone had to do something to someone to worry about the legal ramifications to one where someone merely has to do something to do so. Example: I've mentioned this before, but I'll do so again. We have speed limit laws. If I am driving 71, technically, I can be stopped. (admittedly, almost no LEO is going to at that number, in a 70mph zone) I also recall that the standard question, "Do you know how fast you were going?", if answered with any number higher than the posted limit, is an automatic "win" in court for the LEO.
We also have laws in place that permit a driver to be stopped and cited for driving below the posted limit, as obstructing the flow of traffic. I am not saying Indiana has them, specifically, I'm saying such laws do exist. So, then, my only point of "safety" from the law is to drive exactly the posted limit, not a single MPH faster or slower. This, as we all know, is not workable. I know about officer discretion, but I also know that that means if you get one officer who feels like being a rectal orifice that day, you're going to get cited or worse.

Second example: Quiet country road, early Saturday morning, say 0730ish, so the sun is up. Everything visible for no less than a quarter of a mile in every direction. It's all flat and the crops are not up. There is not another car moving on the road anywhere in sight. Driver slows but does not stop at a stop sign. Officer has pulled off and stopped his car, gotten out and gone to water some flowers behind a tree. As he is returning to his car, he sees the driver in question. Who is harmed by this failure to come to a complete stop? And yet, we all know that that driver is likely to be stopped and cited. The law was what was "harmed" by this violation.

BBI, you suggested that if one is to engage in an action, it behooves him to learn the laws. True enough. How many people know ALL of the traffic code in every place they drive? Is that even possible, let alone practical? or do we just have too many da*n laws? I mean, when kids can't set up a freakin' lemonade stand in front of the house without getting rousted in re: Health Dept. codes being met for the kitchen where the lemonade was prepared... y'know?

This is not a knock on LEOs. You are doing the job you were hired to do. Part of that job, like it or not, is revenue generation. This is, however, a knock on society and on legislative bodies at local and state levels that put you in that position. It's a knock on unscrupulous officers who, when crossed, will then threaten to use the power of their office to intimidate, such as, "I'm gonna tow this car every time I see it." or "you better not so much as spit on the sidewalk or I'm running you in." I'm not a fan of people having a system to hide behind to allow abuses like that.

Just my thoughts, as I said. I do want us to have laws, I just don't want them to be intrusive and micromanaging. I think we can all agree that the legal structure we have today is both of those things.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[88E30M50]

I've done the trip down through NC several times and it's a great drive, except for the trucks. My God son is stationed at Ft Bragg and my brother and I drive down to see him off on deployments and to be there when he gets back. In each case, we always take either my F150 or his even though the best vehicle I have for a long road trip is a 2011 BMW 535is. The F150 makes for a much better drive than the bimmer does because with the F150, we float along right at the limit, to maybe 5 over. That's tough to do in the bimmer, especially in the West Virginia/Virginia/North Carolina mountains. With the bimmer, you are always looking for the traps, running radar detectors and keeping an eye out for aircraft. Or, you plod along at half the vehicles designed cruising speed. It's much easier to just take the truck and enjoy the scenery.

Besides, when I drive the bimmer, all of the traffic is in front of me. When I drive the F150, it's all behind me. Or, maybe I'm just getting old.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Just jumping in with a thought on this... it seems to me that we've somehow at some point changed from a society in which someone had to do something to someone to worry about the legal ramifications to one where someone merely has to do something to do so. Example: I've mentioned this before, but I'll do so again. We have speed limit laws. If I am driving 71, technically, I can be stopped. (admittedly, almost no LEO is going to at that number, in a 70mph zone) I also recall that the standard question, "Do you know how fast you were going?", if answered with any number higher than the posted limit, is an automatic "win" in court for the LEO.
We also have laws in place that permit a driver to be stopped and cited for driving below the posted limit, as obstructing the flow of traffic. I am not saying Indiana has them, specifically, I'm saying such laws do exist. So, then, my only point of "safety" from the law is to drive exactly the posted limit, not a single MPH faster or slower. This, as we all know, is not workable. I know about officer discretion, but I also know that that means if you get one officer who feels like being a rectal orifice that day, you're going to get cited or worse.

Second example: Quiet country road, early Saturday morning, say 0730ish, so the sun is up. Everything visible for no less than a quarter of a mile in every direction. It's all flat and the crops are not up. There is not another car moving on the road anywhere in sight. Driver slows but does not stop at a stop sign. Officer has pulled off and stopped his car, gotten out and gone to water some flowers behind a tree. As he is returning to his car, he sees the driver in question. Who is harmed by this failure to come to a complete stop? And yet, we all know that that driver is likely to be stopped and cited. The law was what was "harmed" by this violation.

BBI, you suggested that if one is to engage in an action, it behooves him to learn the laws. True enough. How many people know ALL of the traffic code in every place they drive? Is that even possible, let alone practical? or do we just have too many da*n laws? I mean, when kids can't set up a freakin' lemonade stand in front of the house without getting rousted in re: Health Dept. codes being met for the kitchen where the lemonade was prepared... y'know?

This is not a knock on LEOs. You are doing the job you were hired to do. Part of that job, like it or not, is revenue generation. This is, however, a knock on society and on legislative bodies at local and state levels that put you in that position. It's a knock on unscrupulous officers who, when crossed, will then threaten to use the power of their office to intimidate, such as, "I'm gonna tow this car every time I see it." or "you better not so much as spit on the sidewalk or I'm running you in." I'm not a fan of people having a system to hide behind to allow abuses like that.

Just my thoughts, as I said. I do want us to have laws, I just don't want them to be intrusive and micromanaging. I think we can all agree that the legal structure we have today is both of those things.

Blessings,
Bill

Great post! I suppose my way of looking at it is that in generations past, you had to make an effort to get crosswise of the law, and today, you have to make an effort damned near requiring clairvoyant powers to avoid getting crosswise of the law.