Harassed by the cops

[Shangri-laschild]

Well, see, I get that if you are the lone car on the road at 3am, and a cop is bored or whatever, the odds are good that you will get pulled.

Eh...even then, unless you've done something, all I can understand is just following. I've been followed around by a cop before, I'm guessing because it was a small town and it was really early in the morning (like 3am). It was weird but nothing big or anything since all they did was follow me for the short bit it took me to get on the interstate. I would have been ticked off if I had gotten pulled over and hadn't done anything just because of the time and being bored.

[Jester]

I think cops should at least limit pulling people over who appear to be drunk.

I can't believe this, but I am going to take the cops' side to this, and disagree with you. Why? Well, because not everyone who appears drunk is drunk, and not everyone who does not appear drunk is not drunk. There are many habitual, "professional" drunks who have mastered the art of, at least from a distance, appearing not to be drunk. If the cops only pulled over the really "obvious" ones, they would be getting many a hue and a cry from the public when a not-so-obvious one killed some innocent people because they were driving drunk.

Look, it is not a perfect science, and I dare say the majority of cops mean well and ARE out to protect and serve. But it is a crapshoot, this drunk driving thing, and the cops are human too.

Keep in mind, the above has been said by someone who HAS driven drunk, and HAS gotten away with it (and, on at least one occasion, did not). So I know from personal experience that someone can appear to be perfectly alright, can appear to be driving perfectly alright, and is not, in fact, in any way alright. I feel that the cops should be allowed to err on the side of caution with this, as long as it does not cross into the are of harrassment, as it apparently did with Fashion Lad, and clearly did with Recovering Kinkoid.

There was no reason to pull me over either time

Amusing story: a 17-year old Jester is riding his bicycle home from work at about 2 am. I was wearing ripped jeans and a rock band concert shirt. And a cop cruiser pulled me over. And the (rather young) cop starts asking me a lot of questions. I told him truthfully that I was coming home from work, where I worked, where I live (I was going the most logical straightforward route from one to the other), and that my parents were fully aware of this. (While my town had a curfew law, it did not apply to minors who were commuting to or from work, as long as their parents were aware of the job and the commute.) I answered all his questions calmly, logically, rationally, and lucidly, and finally asked him why he had pulled me over to begin with. He said that they had had some problems in that area, and he saw the way I was dressed, and--

"Wait....so you pulled me over because I'm a slob?!?"

The cop did a double take, realized I had pretty much nailed it, admitted as much, laughed, and left me to be on my way. But not before he commented on how kickass the band on my t-shirt actually was!

All in all, rather amusing to me at the time, and even now.

[protege]

Well, see, I get that if you are the lone car on the road at 3am, and a cop is bored or whatever, the odds are good that you will get pulled.

In that case though, unless you're doing something *really* stupid, they'll probably let you off with a warning.

Case in point, many years ago, I was driving back to school...and got pulled over for speeding. Granted, it was late, and yes, I *was* speeding. Nothing serious, maybe about 35-40mph in the 25mph zone through South Park on Route 88, somewhere around 10pm or so. Nothing really unusual, since Route 88 is usually busy most summer nights as people attempt to show off their rides and/or cruise for ladies

But, I got pulled over simply because I was the only car on the road. During the day, being slightly over the limit isn't as obvious--as long as you're going with traffic, you're fine.

Anyway, I got a warning, simply because I could have easily fought that ticket. The cop wanted me to slow down, but didn't want to waste time in front of the magistrate with it.

[JustaCashier]

Nothing serious, maybe about 35-40mph in the 25mph zone through South Park on Route 88......

OMIGOD!! YOU KILLED KENNY!!

Mike

[Eric the Grey]

I think cops should at least limit pulling people over who appear to be drunk. Twice in the past 6 months I've left work very late at night (2 am and 3 am) and was pulled over.

That has happened to me once. I was headed home in the dark, riding a moped (at the time, my only form of transportation) and was pulled over because my, and I quote: "tail lite seemed a bit dim"

I mean really. Of all the things you could pull someone over for. He even did the whole checking of my license (not required for a moped in Colorado) and checked the little tag that served as a registration (also not required) on the moped.

Basically, he held me up for 20 minutes for no reason.

Personally, I believe that if you are not allowed to see the results on the radar gun, you're being denied your right to confront your accuser. The cop isn't because he's only taking the word of a machine that you were speeding...


Eric the Grey

[dendawg]

OMIGOD!! YOU KILLED KENNY!!

[Jester]

Basically, he held me up for 20 minutes for no reason.

Oh, it wasn't no reason. There is always a reason.

For instance, maybe there had been some criminal activity in the area, and he was checking you out to see if you were up to no good.

Maybe he thought the tail light was dim, and he was checking it out for safety reasons.

Maybe he thought you seemed like you were driving unsteadily, possibly due to drugs or alcohol.

Or maybe he was a power mad douche wagon bored out of his mind and looking to get his jollies in a way to compensate for his penis size by harassing innocent people.

Either way, there's always a reason.

What? I never said there was always a good reason!

[protege]

Maybe he thought the tail light was dim, and he was checking it out for safety reasons.

I'd actually prefer to get pulled over for something like that. Getting rear-ended is a bitch

For example, I rarely drive the MG at night. Mainly, because the car sits so low to the ground...that most car headlights (even on little things like Geo Metros!) are roughly at eye level. Annoying as hell. But, because I don't do it much, I had no idea that one of the taillights wasn't working, nor was one of the license plate lights. Turn signal on that side still worked though. Anyway, both of those things, although relatively minor, are technically illegal. One is a safety violation, the other...is that the license plate is obscured.

At least nobody busted me, and both things were easily repaired. Taillight didn't work because a wire had come off while installing it. License plate light...didn't work because the bulb had failed. Oops. Should mention that in both cases, I took the lenses off, and scrubbed the crap out of them. What a difference that made

[Eric the Grey]

Or maybe he was a power mad douche wagon bored out of his mind and looking to get his jollies in a way to compensate for his penis size by harassing innocent people.

Either way, there's always a reason.

What? I never said there was always a good reason!

I'll take Door #4.

Yea, that was my impression of this particular police department in general, and I know I'm not the only one.

Although I hear they've changed for the good.


Eric the Grey

[Teysa]

When I went to my grandpa's funeral back in August, my uncle warned my SO to be careful driving home. He said the police in <small town, Oklahoma> really liked to pull over anyone associated with <Grandpa's last name>. (The funeral was at a local church and he was very well known in the community.) ie the whole town was a speedtrap and if the speed lmit sign said 55 mph it didn't mean 56 mph.

[Tanasi]

Several years ago on Memorial Day I was pulled over while taking my Mom to visit my Dad's grave. I was driving my Dad's 1947 Dodge Pickup. The LEO at first said I was speeding, then he said I only had one brake light and it didn't work, the license plate light didn't work, and neither my Mom nor I was wearing seat belts. He wrote me for the seat belts, brake light not working, plate light, and only having one brake light. After he was finished I told him to tell his Daddy to expect a visit in the morning. This LEO's Dad was chief of police.
I drove the truck the next morning to the PD and talked to his Dad (who I grew up with) and explained the situation. The truck was built years before seat belts were thought of, it only came with one brake light and no plate light and the light was working although it was dim. His Dad took back the ticket. As I was leaving I asked the boy if he still wet his pants when we got nervous.

Two years ago I was asked to drive my WWII era Deuce and quarter Red-Ball express truck. So I did, complete with a cab mounted 1919A4 Browning machine gun (belt of blank ammo.) I had a bed full of veterans and my oldest son in a WWII Marine uniform on the MG. So on the way home I was pulled over because I didn't have working headlights and tail-lights. Then he noticed the MG and totally freaked out. The boy and I was on the ground while he held his gun on us. I asked him to call his supervisior. After 10 to 12 LEOs were there we were handcuffed and allowed to stand up. The supervisior got there I explained what were doing and was uncuffed. The tail-light was dim but worked and the black out covers were lowered on the headlights but they worked. I also had my paper work on the MG. After an hour I was told I could go and without any tickets. The LEO shook my hand and said he hoped there wasn't any hard feelings. I told him there wasn't but in the future he should probably search the people he handcuffed better because I had a loaded small-sized revolver in my pocket. The blood drained from his face.

[Jester]

The truck was built years before seat belts were thought of, it only came with one brake light and no plate light and the light was working although it was dim.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with older vehicles like that, aren't you still required to retro-install (probably the wrong word, but I'm hardly awake) a lot of that safety equipment to bring it at least partly up to the current code?

[protege]

I know in Pennsylvania, depending on what type registration (classic, antique) you don't have to. As long as the *original* lights are fitted, you do not have to upgrade them to current standards. You're usually held to whatever standard in place when the vehicle was built or first registered. Many classic car owners find ways to not only preserve the looks of their vehicles, but know how to "keep with the times."

For example, that's why my MGB no longer has sealed-beam headlights. They were OK in the 1960s, but they're considered feeble now. Instead, I chose to fit upgraded halogen units, along with an upgraded alternator to handle the increased power requirements. While I was at it, I fitted brighter bulbs into the tail and marker lights. I don't drive the car at night, but it's a "just in case" sort of thing.

But, at least my mods were easy. Not so if you own something like a 1946 MG TC. Turn signals and rear lights on those were tiny! In those days, many cars made do with 'semaphores' rather than turn signals. Some owners though, fit lights either side of the license plate.

[Tanasi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with older vehicles like that, aren't you still required to retro-install (probably the wrong word, but I'm hardly awake) a lot of that safety equipment to bring it at least partly up to the current code?

I guess it depends upon the state, in mine no. If that were so retro-fitting airbags to most antiques would be impossible. That 47 Dodge I was writing about the rear bumper was an option as was the turn signals. The passenger side windshield wiper was also an option. The truck rarely gets driven anymore and even then less than 30mph in small city type neighborhoods. It's goes to visit my Dad a few times a years to let him know that it's still tickin.
Seat belts were required equipment until the mid sixties. My first Mustang didn't have seatbelts but did have the floor-board mounts. A lot of what we take for granted with today's autos were options no so long ago.

[Jester]

If that were so retro-fitting airbags to most antiques would be impossible.

Okay, well maybe not that, but I was thinking more lights and seatbelts.