| Author | Post |
|---|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:34 pm |
|
inNV wrote: Gordie wrote:
inNV wrote:
NRS backing me up was posted, stop lying and saying it wasn't. And just because the others have provided case law, it doesn't mean it is case on point. Providing case law on a different case doesn't mean you win.
And the rest of your post is too ridiculous to even bother responding to.
You have failed to show RAS that the OP was armed and dangerous. Also, the threat of arrest to force compliance with demands which were not required by law is coercion. The threat of confiscation of the gun is further coercion.
I am unaware of an RAS that shows the OP was armed and dangerous. I don't know if such an RAS would exist. But if you mean NRS showing that a PO can secure a weapon during a lawful stop, it has been. He doesn't have to be armed AND dangerous, he just has to be believed to have committed a crime, which is why the PO pulled him over in the first (yes traffic infraction are a crime, no matter how you put it). That is what gave the PO legality to secure his weapon for the duration of the traffic stop. Also, please learn what coercion is, and stop following the wrong leaders.
Obviously any case law will be from another case since this case has not gone to court. If the only case law allowed, is that which is from the particular case in question, then no case law would ever be allowed until it was too late to be relevant.
Ignoring case law in similar cases does not mean that you win either.
Do you have any idea what case on point means? Obviously not. Let me explain, Case on point means that a previous case law has to apply to the case in point, in other words precedence. What was provided was not case on point, but relied on completely different circumstances, none of which happened here, in order to try and prove a false claim. Get it? It is almost idiotic to think that I wold require case law from this case. Doh!
And the rest of your post is too ridiculous to even bother responding to.
I was just using the flow of your own arguments to show the total lack of logic in your statement that "a criminal is a criminal is a criminal".
Yea, that's what you're doing. Obviously you still fail to see the reasoning of traffic stops. But act like I am comparing speeding with murder in terms other than they are both crimes. Maybe it would work. Like I said earlier, you are the worst when it comes to understanding. You compared speeding to robbery, which is a Category B felony. 
Maybe you should review the NRS applicable to traffic infractions, and present the portion that outlines speeding as at least a misdemeanor offense. THEN you might have a leg to stand on.
You cannot simply declare something and expect others to fall into lockstep with your opinion. You aren't the authority.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:35 pm |
|
inNV wrote: Gordie wrote:
inNV wrote:
You are probably the worst one here, that really has no clue what he is talking about. The other guys, although they do lack understanding, at least have something more intelligent to say.
And generalized statements like "A criminal is a criminal is a criminal" display the very height of intellect.
You're just mad because someone showed your deeply flawed statement to everyone here and ran with it to its' own conclusion.
To be called the worst by you is no insult. Thank You.
So breaking a law, no mater how minute, does not make you a criminal? Please explain how not. No, you must explain how speeding tickets are a crime such as robbery, which was your claim.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:38 pm |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: Color of law would only apply (in this case) if HE was ARRESTED, it would have been a FALSE ARREST, and would have been covered under the color of law, something which you obviously know nothing about.
Please provide a cite. Where is it stated that "color of law" is only applicable if someone is arrested.......
Please cite where I said that false arrest, which is what I said, is the only rule that applies under the color of law. As a matter of fact I gave two instances; false arrest and deprivation of property. I suppose I could of said that if the PO demanded sexual favors in return for not arresting the OP, or pushed him around physically, that would also come under the color of law. But then again, unlike you, I was only referring to the cirumstances of this case. So, then please provide a cite where color of law is only applicable if someone is arrested and ? deprived of property? Or do you mean to allege that color of law is only applicable if someone is arrested OR deprived of property? No matter which it is, provide a cite. Prove your case.
Teach us, oh great one.
Ok, obviously you fail to understand color of law. Color of law is using one's authority (such as a PO) to influence someone else. Abuse of power so to speak. The FBI, which is who investigates allegations of such acts, usually investigates under 5 or 6 criteria.
The first would be false arrest. You know, arresting someone for something they didn't do, but in this case, on purpose. If a PO arrests someone because they thought they were someone else, color of law would not apply. If the OP was arrested for not having a blue card, or OC'ing, then color of law could apply.
Second, fabrication of evidence. If a PO plants a gun on a suspect, this is fabrication of evidence. Color of law could apply. There was none of this in the OP.
Third, a sexual affront. If a PO sexually harasses someone or threatens them if they don't perform a certain sexual favor, color of law could apply. But unless the OP is leaving out something, this didn't happen either.
Fourth, excessive force. Unless he man-handled the OP, doesn't apply either.
Fifth, failure to protect. If a PO intentionally puts you in harms way, or does nothing to protect you from harm, color of law could apply. Didn't see that here either. And please don't come up with a silly argument that because the PO secured his weapon, he put him in harms way because it doesn't fly.
And finally sixth, deprivation of property. If a PO uses his authority (or should be lack there of) to deprive you of your property, color of law could apply. As we know, and either you or Tim admitted (don't recall who) this does not apply here because the PO secured his weapon during a lawful traffic stop, and returned it when it concluded.
You still insisted that I only meant color of law applies with the two things I mentioned, even though I clarified that I was only talking about the color of law as it was being talked about in this case. I mean you quoted me saying:
suppose I could of said that if the PO demanded sexual favors in return for not arresting the OP, or pushed him around physically, that would also come under the color of law. But then again, unlike you, I was only referring to the cirumstances of this case./i]
and you still asked me:
"do you mean to allege that color of law is only applicable if someone is arrested OR deprived of property?"
You guys are something else. Going in circles.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:41 pm |
|
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: Color of law would only apply (in this case) if HE was ARRESTED, it would have been a FALSE ARREST, and would have been covered under the color of law, something which you obviously know nothing about.
Please provide a cite. Where is it stated that "color of law" is only applicable if someone is arrested.......
Please cite where I said that false arrest, which is what I said, is the only rule that applies under the color of law. As a matter of fact I gave two instances; false arrest and deprivation of property. I suppose I could of said that if the PO demanded sexual favors in return for not arresting the OP, or pushed him around physically, that would also come under the color of law. But then again, unlike you, I was only referring to the cirumstances of this case. So, then please provide a cite where color of law is only applicable if someone is arrested and ? deprived of property? Or do you mean to allege that color of law is only applicable if someone is arrested OR deprived of property? No matter which it is, provide a cite. Prove your case.
Teach us, oh great one.
Ok, obviously you fail to understand color of law. Color of law is using one's authority (such as a PO) to influence someone else. Abuse of power so to speak. The FBI, which is who investigates allegations of such acts, usually investigates under 5 or 6 criteria. The LE did attempt to do such.
The first would be false arrest. You know, arresting someone for something they didn't do, but in this case, on purpose. If a PO arrests someone because they thought they were someone else, color of law would not apply. If the OP was arrested for not having a blue card, or OC'ing, then color of law could apply.
Second, fabrication of evidence. If a PO plants a gun on a suspect, this is fabrication of evidence. Color of law could apply. There was none of this in the OP.
Third, a sexual affront. If a PO sexually harasses someone or threatens them if they don't perform a certain sexual favor, color of law could apply. But unless the OP is leaving out something, this didn't happen either.
Fourth, excessive force. Unless he man-handled the OP, doesn't apply either.
Fifth, failure to protect. If a PO intentionally puts you in harms way, or does nothing to protect you from harm, color of law could apply. Didn't see that here either. And please don't come up with a silly argument that because the PO secured his weapon, he put him in harms way because it doesn't fly.
And finally sixth, deprivation of property. If a PO uses his authority (or should be lack there of) to deprive you of your property, color of law could apply. As we know, and either you or Tim admitted (don't recall who) this does not apply here because the PO secured his weapon during a lawful traffic stop, and returned it when it concluded.
You still insisted that I only meant color of law applies with the two things I mentioned, even though I clarified that I was only talking about the color of law as it was being talked about in this case. I mean you quoted me saying:
I clearly understood that. You claimed that color of law would only be applicable if the person had been arrested. You misunderstood my response. I understood you. You failed to understand me. According to you, color of law would only be applicable in this case if the person had been actually arrested. I disagree. My response to you was equally valid and understandable without my addition of "in this case." I guess that I falsely assumed that you actually wished to discuss this case, so I presented my response as if we actually were discussing this case.
suppose I could of said that if the PO demanded sexual favors in return for not arresting the OP, or pushed him around physically, that would also come under the color of law. But then again, unlike you, I was only referring to the cirumstances of this case./i]
and you still asked me:
"do you mean to allege that color of law is only applicable if someone is arrested OR deprived of property?"
You guys are something else. Going in circles. SO, if it is as you attempt to declare, cite to authority. Where do you get your opinion? It does not become so simply because you declare it to be so.
Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:45 pm by wrightme
|
Gordie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 641 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:53 pm |
|
inNV wrote: Also, please learn what coercion is, and stop following the wrong leaders.
coercion
Definition
Improper use (or threat of improper use) of authority, economic power, physical force, or other such advantage, by a party to compel another to submit to the wishes of its wielder. Agreements entered into, or testaments signed, under coercion are considered illegal and invalid. See also duress and undue influence.
By threatening to arrest someone for not complying with demands which are not required by law to be obeyed, coercion has occurred. By threatening to keep the gun and make the OP pick it up later unless demands are met, coercion has occured.
Yea, that's what you're doing. Obviously you still fail to see the reasoning of traffic stops. But act like I am comparing speeding with murder in terms other than they are both crimes. Maybe it would work. Like I said earlier, you are the worst when it comes to understanding.
You are the one who made an overly broad statement about all criminals being the same. It is in plain English, the statement says what it says. How else can "A criminal is a criminal is a criminal" be understood other than that you are saying that all criminals are the same regardless of their crime?
So breaking a law, no mater how minute, does not make you a criminal? Please explain how not.
If you go back to my earlier post, you will see that I pointed out the faulty logic of your statement because of the fact that we all know that criminals are not all the same. There are different degrees of crime. I never said that speeding was not a crime. Talk about a failure to understand.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:53 pm |
|
Failure to use a turn signal:
NRS 484.343 Movement and signals for turning; signal for stopping or decreasing speed.
1. A driver shall not turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement and after giving an appropriate signal if any other vehicle may be affected by such movement.
2. A signal of intention to turn right or left, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course, shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled in a business or residential district and not less than the last 300 feet traveled in any other area prior to changing the course of a vehicle. This rule shall be observed, regardless of the weather.
3. A driver shall not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1494; A 1973, 1327)
Speeding:
NRS 484.361 Basic rule; additional penalty for violation committed in work zone.
1. It is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character at:
(a) A rate of speed greater than is reasonable or proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway, the weather and other highway conditions.
(b) Such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(c) A rate of speed greater than that posted by a public authority for the particular portion of highway being traversed.
(d) In any event, a rate of speed greater than 75 miles per hour.
2. A person who violates any provision of this section may be subject to the additional penalty set forth in NRS 484.3667.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1486; A 1975, 754; 1987, 656; 1995, 2441, 2442; 2003, 3241)
Clark county:
14.24.010 Unlawful manners of driving. It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character:
(a) In a reckless manner on any street or highway in this county; or
(b) In any other than a careful or prudent manner; or
(c) At a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway; or
(d) At such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(Ord. 230 § 6(A), 1965)
Are you people really going to sit here and tell me that breaking a law is not a crime?Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:55 pm by inNV
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:56 pm |
|
Gordie wrote: inNV wrote: Also, please learn what coercion is, and stop following the wrong leaders.
coercion
Definition
Improper use (or threat of improper use) of authority, economic power, physical force, or other such advantage, by a party to compel another to submit to the wishes of its wielder. Agreements entered into, or testaments signed, under coercion are considered illegal and invalid. See also duress and undue influence.
By threatening to arrest someone for not complying with demands which are not required by law to be obeyed, coercion has occurred. By threatening to keep the gun and make the OP pick it up later unless demands are met, coercion has occured.
Yea, that's what you're doing. Obviously you still fail to see the reasoning of traffic stops. But act like I am comparing speeding with murder in terms other than they are both crimes. Maybe it would work. Like I said earlier, you are the worst when it comes to understanding.
You are the one who made an overly broad statement about all criminals being the same. It is in plain English, the statement says what it says. How else can "A criminal is a criminal is a criminal" be understood other than that you are saying that all criminals are the same regardless of their crime?
So breaking a law, no mater how minute, does not make you a criminal? Please explain how not.
If you go back to my earlier post, you will see that I pointed out the faulty logic of your statement because of the fact that we all know that criminals are not all the same. There are different degrees of crime. I never said that speeding was not a crime. Talk about a failure to understand.
He has his blinders on. He is completely incapable of seeing the faulty logic he is using. He believes something to be so, and attempts to declare it to be so in a vacuum. He doesn't even try to understand arguments presented contrary to his own opinion. I am completely willing to review any information (cited) that he presents fairly. I would expect him to do the same when we present information (cited as we have done).
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:57 pm |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: Gordie wrote:
inNV wrote:
You are probably the worst one here, that really has no clue what he is talking about. The other guys, although they do lack understanding, at least have something more intelligent to say.
And generalized statements like "A criminal is a criminal is a criminal" display the very height of intellect.
You're just mad because someone showed your deeply flawed statement to everyone here and ran with it to its' own conclusion.
To be called the worst by you is no insult. Thank You.
So breaking a law, no mater how minute, does not make you a criminal? Please explain how not. No, you must explain how speeding tickets are a crime such as robbery, which was your claim.
I never claimed it was a crime in line with robbery, I claimed it was a crime. I never claimed all criminals are the same, comparing murderers to shoplifters. I was only comparing it in the sense that in any case, any crime, a PO has the right to secure the perps weapon. Obviously I am not the on who lacks understanding, but it is all of you who failed to see why I made the comparison. When I made the comparison, I believe I stated why I made it.Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:01 pm by inNV
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:00 pm |
|
inNV wrote: Failure to use a turn signal:
NRS 484.343 Movement and signals for turning; signal for stopping or decreasing speed.
1. A driver shall not turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement and after giving an appropriate signal if any other vehicle may be affected by such movement.
2. A signal of intention to turn right or left, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course, shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled in a business or residential district and not less than the last 300 feet traveled in any other area prior to changing the course of a vehicle. This rule shall be observed, regardless of the weather.
3. A driver shall not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1494; A 1973, 1327)
Speeding:
NRS 484.361 Basic rule; additional penalty for violation committed in work zone.
1. It is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character at:
(a) A rate of speed greater than is reasonable or proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway, the weather and other highway conditions.
(b) Such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(c) A rate of speed greater than that posted by a public authority for the particular portion of highway being traversed.
(d) In any event, a rate of speed greater than 75 miles per hour.
2. A person who violates any provision of this section may be subject to the additional penalty set forth in NRS 484.3667.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1486; A 1975, 754; 1987, 656; 1995, 2441, 2442; 2003, 3241)
Clark county:
14.24.010 Unlawful manners of driving. It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character:
(a) In a reckless manner on any street or highway in this county; or
(b) In any other than a careful or prudent manner; or
(c) At a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway; or
(d) At such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(Ord. 230 § 6(A), 1965)
Are you people really going to sit here and tell me that breaking a law is not a crime? No, we are going to sit here and tell you that you haven't proven any point where speeding is akin to robbery as you have attempted to declare. As a hint to you, you may wish to begin with the tiered method of penalties where misdemeanors begin, followed by those for gross misdemeanors, and the subsequent tiered penalties for the felony categories. Then work to place speeding tickets into their place in that heirarchy. Extra points will be given for providing clear links to the websites you used as reference so others can check your work.
Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim it to be akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony. Do you really believe speeding is a crime like robbery, as you claimed?
You made a blanket claim that traffic tickets are crimes. Support it.
Part in italics is the original. Here I will reword that statement so inNV can understand my intent.
Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim that a speeding ticket is akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony. Do you really believe speeding is a crime like robbery, as you claimed?
Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:29 pm by wrightme
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:04 pm |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: Failure to use a turn signal:
NRS 484.343 Movement and signals for turning; signal for stopping or decreasing speed.
1. A driver shall not turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement and after giving an appropriate signal if any other vehicle may be affected by such movement.
2. A signal of intention to turn right or left, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course, shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled in a business or residential district and not less than the last 300 feet traveled in any other area prior to changing the course of a vehicle. This rule shall be observed, regardless of the weather.
3. A driver shall not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1494; A 1973, 1327)
Speeding:
NRS 484.361 Basic rule; additional penalty for violation committed in work zone.
1. It is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character at:
(a) A rate of speed greater than is reasonable or proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway, the weather and other highway conditions.
(b) Such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(c) A rate of speed greater than that posted by a public authority for the particular portion of highway being traversed.
(d) In any event, a rate of speed greater than 75 miles per hour.
2. A person who violates any provision of this section may be subject to the additional penalty set forth in NRS 484.3667.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1486; A 1975, 754; 1987, 656; 1995, 2441, 2442; 2003, 3241)
Clark county:
14.24.010 Unlawful manners of driving. It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character:
(a) In a reckless manner on any street or highway in this county; or
(b) In any other than a careful or prudent manner; or
(c) At a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway; or
(d) At such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(Ord. 230 § 6(A), 1965)
Are you people really going to sit here and tell me that breaking a law is not a crime? No, we are going to sit here and tell you that you haven't proven any point where speeding is akin to robbery as you have attempted to declare. As a hint to you, you may wish to begin with the tiered method of penalties where misdemeanors begin, followed by those for gross misdemeanors, and the subsequent tiered penalties for the felony categories. Then work to place speeding tickets into their place in that heirarchy. Extra points will be given for providing clear links to the websites you used as reference so others can check your work.
Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim it to be akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony. Do you really believe speeding is a crime like robbery, as you claimed?
You made a blanket claim that traffic tickets are crimes. Support it.
Honestly, you must be dunce. Please show me where I ever said that speeding and robbery has the same penalty. I NEVER MADE SUCH A STATEMENT. Stop putting your words in my mouth. Traffic crimes are crimes. If you fail to see that not being allowed to do something according to the law, and then doing it is a crime, that is your problem.Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:04 pm by inNV
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:05 pm |
|
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: Gordie wrote:
inNV wrote:
You are probably the worst one here, that really has no clue what he is talking about. The other guys, although they do lack understanding, at least have something more intelligent to say.
And generalized statements like "A criminal is a criminal is a criminal" display the very height of intellect.
You're just mad because someone showed your deeply flawed statement to everyone here and ran with it to its' own conclusion.
To be called the worst by you is no insult. Thank You.
So breaking a law, no mater how minute, does not make you a criminal? Please explain how not. No, you must explain how speeding tickets are a crime such as robbery, which was your claim.
I never claimed it was a crime in line with robbery, I claimed it was a crime. I never claimed all criminals are the same, comparing murderers to shoplifters. I was only comparing it in the sense that in any case, any crime, a PO has the right to secure the perps weapon. Obviously I am not the on who lacks understanding, but it is all of you who failed to see why I made the comparison. When I made the comparison, I believe I stated why I made it.
inNV wrote:
No I comprehend it just fine, obviously you don't. I guess you guys can keep bringing up case law or NRS' that look good, but are not case on point or that don't apply here...I'm done. I suggest some of you study up a little bit before you go out and try some kind of OC assembly.
BTW, it seems that you all forgot that breaking a traffic law, no matter how minute it is, is still breaking the law, and hence you are a criminal. This is why they can secure your firearm. Same as if you just shoplifted, or robbed someone. You don't have to be put in handcuffs, you can just as easily be left in your car, or in this case your motorcycle..
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:06 pm |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: I already explained that what the PO said was not a threat. I showed you what a threat was. Why do you insist in still calling it a threat? I think that is the problem..you misunderstand what actually transpired.
No, you provided your opinion.
"I need you to give me a reason not to take your gun"..or? Did he take his gun? Again, color of law would only apply if he was illegally deprived of his property. But as was stated, during a lawful, criminal traffic stop, it is with in the law to "secure" a firearm.
As has been mentioned ad nauseum, during the traffic stop, LE can be within their right to secure a firearm. We discussed that. Upon culmination of the traffic stop, it was not longer a need. THEN the coercion continued, without legal statute backing it up.
And the reason I still persist is: 1) It's fun to keep proving you guys wrong, and 2) maybe you'll learn something.
Providing your baseless opinion is not akin to "proving you guys wrong." You have yet to cite a single thing to support your opinions.
The cop was in the wrong. He likely knew he was in the wrong after the 20 minute phone call. He continued to provide threats to confiscate the firearm. Once again, if the person in question believes the LE has the power to back up the threat of arrest or confiscation, it IS a threat. It is more so since it was not legal to arrest or confiscate.
Baseless opinion, thats good. Saying I could do something is not threatening the person. Saying "I will if you don't" is. Big difference. If you say "I could kill you" to someone, should you be arrested?
Saying you would do something IS a threat. If the recipient believes you are capable and willing to carry it out. As in the case of a LE, if the person the cop makes the statement to believes the cop is willing (and has the authority) to perform the arrest or confiscation, yes Virginia, it IS a threat.
Also, when was the culmination of the traffic stop? You agree that the firearm may be secured during a traffic stop. Are you trying to say that the officer pulled the OP over, gave him his ticket, and then after continued with the blue card fiasco? I am trying to understand why you believe the blue incident was not during the traffic stop, but after. Where does the OP claim this?
That is how I understood the OP. You seem to understand it differently.
It is not a violation of anyones rights for a PO to claim he will confiscate firearm, nor is it illegal. Again, color of law would only apply if he actually did it. Once again, if you really believe color of law only applies if he actually did it, please cite to authority. Where do you get your opinion?
According to the OP, he didn't believe he could be arrested, he knew he didn't need the blue card. So how would color of law apply in this case? You keep saying that a person must believe he is capable of carrying it out, which obviously the OP did not.
|
Gordie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 641 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:08 pm |
|
inNV wrote:
Fifth, failure to protect. If a PO intentionally puts you in harms way, or does nothing to protect you from harm, color of law could apply. Didn't see that here either. And please don't come up with a silly argument that because the PO secured his weapon, he put him in harms way because it doesn't fly.
If a person puts a weapon and ammunition in an unsecured, public location, then drives away while the proper owner is not in control of the weapon, this could be considered public endangerment. Also, since the LEO left the scene before the OP was allowed to arm himself, this could be putting him in danger.
Granted, you would never get it to fly in court, but you have to admit, it is irresponsible gun handling.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:08 pm |
|
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: Failure to use a turn signal:
NRS 484.343 Movement and signals for turning; signal for stopping or decreasing speed.
1. A driver shall not turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement and after giving an appropriate signal if any other vehicle may be affected by such movement.
2. A signal of intention to turn right or left, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course, shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled in a business or residential district and not less than the last 300 feet traveled in any other area prior to changing the course of a vehicle. This rule shall be observed, regardless of the weather.
3. A driver shall not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1494; A 1973, 1327)
Speeding:
NRS 484.361 Basic rule; additional penalty for violation committed in work zone.
1. It is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character at:
(a) A rate of speed greater than is reasonable or proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway, the weather and other highway conditions.
(b) Such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(c) A rate of speed greater than that posted by a public authority for the particular portion of highway being traversed.
(d) In any event, a rate of speed greater than 75 miles per hour.
2. A person who violates any provision of this section may be subject to the additional penalty set forth in NRS 484.3667.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1486; A 1975, 754; 1987, 656; 1995, 2441, 2442; 2003, 3241)
Clark county:
14.24.010 Unlawful manners of driving. It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character:
(a) In a reckless manner on any street or highway in this county; or
(b) In any other than a careful or prudent manner; or
(c) At a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway; or
(d) At such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(Ord. 230 § 6(A), 1965)
Are you people really going to sit here and tell me that breaking a law is not a crime? No, we are going to sit here and tell you that you haven't proven any point where speeding is akin to robbery as you have attempted to declare. As a hint to you, you may wish to begin with the tiered method of penalties where misdemeanors begin, followed by those for gross misdemeanors, and the subsequent tiered penalties for the felony categories. Then work to place speeding tickets into their place in that heirarchy. Extra points will be given for providing clear links to the websites you used as reference so others can check your work.
Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim it to be akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony. Do you really believe speeding is a crime like robbery, as you claimed?
You made a blanket claim that traffic tickets are crimes. Support it.
Honestly, you must be dunce. Please show me where I ever said that speeding and robbery has the same penalty. I NEVER MADE SUCH A STATEMENT. Stop putting your words in my mouth. Traffic crimes are crimes. If you fail to see that not being allowed to do something according to the law, and then doing it is a crime, that is your problem. So, since you cannot support your position, OR comprehend my posts, you resort to insults?
Where did I try to claim you made such a claim? I did not put words in your mouth.
Once again, if you really believe that traffic infractions are crimes, and since you keep desiring to only discuss this case, we are speaking of speeding and lane change code. WHERE do violations of speed statute fall in the penalty hierarchy? Extra points if you can respond without degrading your position by insulting others.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:09 pm |
|
Sheepdawg wrote:
Also, when was the culmination of the traffic stop? You agree that the firearm may be secured during a traffic stop. Are you trying to say that the officer pulled the OP over, gave him his ticket, and then after continued with the blue card fiasco? I am trying to understand why you believe the blue incident was not during the traffic stop, but after. Where does the OP claim this?
I was given my gun back shortly after the ticket was issued. I don't argue the fact that the PO could legally secure my gun during the traffic stop, but the NRS states he needs RAS that I am a threat. What makes me a threat?
If you don't argue the fact that a PO can legally secure your gun during a traffic stop, why would you need to be a threat for him to do so? You agree he can, or you don't. Which is it?
Again, I am not saying you did anything wrong. I only responded to the masses who ignorantly claimed your rights were violated.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:13 pm |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: Failure to use a turn signal:
NRS 484.343 Movement and signals for turning; signal for stopping or decreasing speed.
1. A driver shall not turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement and after giving an appropriate signal if any other vehicle may be affected by such movement.
2. A signal of intention to turn right or left, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course, shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled in a business or residential district and not less than the last 300 feet traveled in any other area prior to changing the course of a vehicle. This rule shall be observed, regardless of the weather.
3. A driver shall not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1494; A 1973, 1327)
Speeding:
NRS 484.361 Basic rule; additional penalty for violation committed in work zone.
1. It is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character at:
(a) A rate of speed greater than is reasonable or proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway, the weather and other highway conditions.
(b) Such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(c) A rate of speed greater than that posted by a public authority for the particular portion of highway being traversed.
(d) In any event, a rate of speed greater than 75 miles per hour.
2. A person who violates any provision of this section may be subject to the additional penalty set forth in NRS 484.3667.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1486; A 1975, 754; 1987, 656; 1995, 2441, 2442; 2003, 3241)
Clark county:
14.24.010 Unlawful manners of driving. It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character:
(a) In a reckless manner on any street or highway in this county; or
(b) In any other than a careful or prudent manner; or
(c) At a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway; or
(d) At such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(Ord. 230 § 6(A), 1965)
Are you people really going to sit here and tell me that breaking a law is not a crime? No, we are going to sit here and tell you that you haven't proven any point where speeding is akin to robbery as you have attempted to declare. As a hint to you, you may wish to begin with the tiered method of penalties where misdemeanors begin, followed by those for gross misdemeanors, and the subsequent tiered penalties for the felony categories. Then work to place speeding tickets into their place in that heirarchy. Extra points will be given for providing clear links to the websites you used as reference so others can check your work.
Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim it to be akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony. Do you really believe speeding is a crime like robbery, as you claimed?
You made a blanket claim that traffic tickets are crimes. Support it.
Honestly, you must be dunce. Please show me where I ever said that speeding and robbery has the same penalty. I NEVER MADE SUCH A STATEMENT. Stop putting your words in my mouth. Traffic crimes are crimes. If you fail to see that not being allowed to do something according to the law, and then doing it is a crime, that is your problem. So, since you cannot support your position, OR comprehend my posts, you resort to insults?
Where did I try to claim you made such a claim? I did not put words in your mouth.
Liar..in the post I quoted, you said this:
Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim it to be akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony.[
Are you going to sit here and lie now. I never said the penalty's are the same, which you claimed I did.
Once again, if you really believe that traffic infractions are crimes, and since you keep desiring to only discuss this case, we are speaking of speeding and lane change code. WHERE do violations of speed statute fall in the penalty hierarchy? Extra points if you can respond without degrading your position by insulting others.
Is it illegal? Then it's a crime if you do it. I still can't believe you people don't understand this.Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:14 pm by inNV
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:14 pm |
|
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: I already explained that what the PO said was not a threat. I showed you what a threat was. Why do you insist in still calling it a threat? I think that is the problem..you misunderstand what actually transpired.
No, you provided your opinion.
"I need you to give me a reason not to take your gun"..or? Did he take his gun? Again, color of law would only apply if he was illegally deprived of his property. But as was stated, during a lawful, criminal traffic stop, it is with in the law to "secure" a firearm.
As has been mentioned ad nauseum, during the traffic stop, LE can be within their right to secure a firearm. We discussed that. Upon culmination of the traffic stop, it was not longer a need. THEN the coercion continued, without legal statute backing it up.
And the reason I still persist is: 1) It's fun to keep proving you guys wrong, and 2) maybe you'll learn something.
Providing your baseless opinion is not akin to "proving you guys wrong." You have yet to cite a single thing to support your opinions.
The cop was in the wrong. He likely knew he was in the wrong after the 20 minute phone call. He continued to provide threats to confiscate the firearm. Once again, if the person in question believes the LE has the power to back up the threat of arrest or confiscation, it IS a threat. It is more so since it was not legal to arrest or confiscate.
Baseless opinion, thats good. Saying I could do something is not threatening the person. Saying "I will if you don't" is. Big difference. If you say "I could kill you" to someone, should you be arrested?
Saying you would do something IS a threat. If the recipient believes you are capable and willing to carry it out. As in the case of a LE, if the person the cop makes the statement to believes the cop is willing (and has the authority) to perform the arrest or confiscation, yes Virginia, it IS a threat.
Also, when was the culmination of the traffic stop? You agree that the firearm may be secured during a traffic stop. Are you trying to say that the officer pulled the OP over, gave him his ticket, and then after continued with the blue card fiasco? I am trying to understand why you believe the blue incident was not during the traffic stop, but after. Where does the OP claim this?
That is how I understood the OP. You seem to understand it differently.
It is not a violation of anyones rights for a PO to claim he will confiscate firearm, nor is it illegal. Again, color of law would only apply if he actually did it. Once again, if you really believe color of law only applies if he actually did it, please cite to authority. Where do you get your opinion?
According to the OP, he didn't believe he could be arrested, he knew he didn't need the blue card. So how would color of law apply in this case? You keep saying that a person must believe he is capable of carrying it out, which obviously the OP did not. All he has to believe is that the LE is willing (and capable) of carrying out the threat. No where did I state that it the person has believe he could be arrested.
If it were me in his shoes, I would know that LE cannot lawfully arrest me if I do not present the blue card. I would also believe that the LE may not understand that, and will be willing and capable of arresting me.
For me to not see the statements of the LE as a threat, I would need to not only know that there is no legal statutory basis for the arrest, I would also need to believe that the LE in question understands that there is no legal statutory basis for the arrest. The LE in the OP did not show that understanding, even after a 20 minute phone call.
The OPs knowledge of statute was greater than that of the LE. In his shoes, I sure would believe that the LE was not only willing to arrest, but also was not understanding that is was unlawful to arrest.
Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:14 pm by wrightme
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:15 pm |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: Gordie wrote:
inNV wrote:
You are probably the worst one here, that really has no clue what he is talking about. The other guys, although they do lack understanding, at least have something more intelligent to say.
And generalized statements like "A criminal is a criminal is a criminal" display the very height of intellect.
You're just mad because someone showed your deeply flawed statement to everyone here and ran with it to its' own conclusion.
To be called the worst by you is no insult. Thank You.
So breaking a law, no mater how minute, does not make you a criminal? Please explain how not. No, you must explain how speeding tickets are a crime such as robbery, which was your claim.
I never claimed it was a crime in line with robbery, I claimed it was a crime. I never claimed all criminals are the same, comparing murderers to shoplifters. I was only comparing it in the sense that in any case, any crime, a PO has the right to secure the perps weapon. Obviously I am not the on who lacks understanding, but it is all of you who failed to see why I made the comparison. When I made the comparison, I believe I stated why I made it.
inNV wrote:
No I comprehend it just fine, obviously you don't. I guess you guys can keep bringing up case law or NRS' that look good, but are not case on point or that don't apply here...I'm done. I suggest some of you study up a little bit before you go out and try some kind of OC assembly.
BTW, it seems that you all forgot that breaking a traffic law, no matter how minute it is, is still breaking the law, and hence you are a criminal. This is why they can secure your firearm. Same as if you just shoplifted, or robbed someone. You don't have to be put in handcuffs, you can just as easily be left in your car, or in this case your motorcycle..
I was referring to the securing of your firearm, not that the penalties are the same. Again, your lack of reading comprehension shows.Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:16 pm by inNV
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:19 pm |
|
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: Failure to use a turn signal:
NRS 484.343 Movement and signals for turning; signal for stopping or decreasing speed.
1. A driver shall not turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement and after giving an appropriate signal if any other vehicle may be affected by such movement.
2. A signal of intention to turn right or left, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course, shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled in a business or residential district and not less than the last 300 feet traveled in any other area prior to changing the course of a vehicle. This rule shall be observed, regardless of the weather.
3. A driver shall not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1494; A 1973, 1327)
Speeding:
NRS 484.361 Basic rule; additional penalty for violation committed in work zone.
1. It is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character at:
(a) A rate of speed greater than is reasonable or proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway, the weather and other highway conditions.
(b) Such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(c) A rate of speed greater than that posted by a public authority for the particular portion of highway being traversed.
(d) In any event, a rate of speed greater than 75 miles per hour.
2. A person who violates any provision of this section may be subject to the additional penalty set forth in NRS 484.3667.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1486; A 1975, 754; 1987, 656; 1995, 2441, 2442; 2003, 3241)
Clark county:
14.24.010 Unlawful manners of driving. It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character:
(a) In a reckless manner on any street or highway in this county; or
(b) In any other than a careful or prudent manner; or
(c) At a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway; or
(d) At such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(Ord. 230 § 6(A), 1965)
Are you people really going to sit here and tell me that breaking a law is not a crime? No, we are going to sit here and tell you that you haven't proven any point where speeding is akin to robbery as you have attempted to declare. As a hint to you, you may wish to begin with the tiered method of penalties where misdemeanors begin, followed by those for gross misdemeanors, and the subsequent tiered penalties for the felony categories. Then work to place speeding tickets into their place in that heirarchy. Extra points will be given for providing clear links to the websites you used as reference so others can check your work.
Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim it to be akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony. Do you really believe speeding is a crime like robbery, as you claimed?
You made a blanket claim that traffic tickets are crimes. Support it.
Honestly, you must be dunce. Please show me where I ever said that speeding and robbery has the same penalty. I NEVER MADE SUCH A STATEMENT. Stop putting your words in my mouth. Traffic crimes are crimes. If you fail to see that not being allowed to do something according to the law, and then doing it is a crime, that is your problem. So, since you cannot support your position, OR comprehend my posts, you resort to insults?
Where did I try to claim you made such a claim? I did not put words in your mouth.
Liar..in the post I quoted, you said this:
Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim it to be akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony.[
Are you going to sit here and lie now. I never said the penalty's are the same, which you claimed I did.
Once again, if you really believe that traffic infractions are crimes, and since you keep desiring to only discuss this case, we are speaking of speeding and lane change code. WHERE do violations of speed statute fall in the penalty hierarchy? Extra points if you can respond without degrading your position by insulting others.
Is it illegal? Then it's a crime if you do it. I still can't believe you people don't understand this. Typical. You couldn't respond without insult.
I didn't claim that the penalties were the same. You misunderstood my post. Again. I will reword it here to make it more clear.
You claim that a speeding ticket is a crime. Just as if someone robbed a person or shoplifted. The penalty for those sets the degree of criminality. WHERE does the penalty for a speeding ticket place it in the penalty hierarchy?
NOTE: I did not claim that you felt the penalties were the same. I claimed that you placed it (by your own statement) into the same level as those crimes, which are penalized (in the case of robbery) as felonies.
You claim that speeding tickets are crimes. Prove it.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:20 pm |
|
Gordie wrote:
inNV wrote:
Fifth, failure to protect. If a PO intentionally puts you in harms way, or does nothing to protect you from harm, color of law could apply. Didn't see that here either. And please don't come up with a silly argument that because the PO secured his weapon, he put him in harms way because it doesn't fly.
If a person puts a weapon and ammunition in an unsecured, public location, then drives away while the proper owner is not in control of the weapon, this could be considered public endangerment. Also, since the LEO left the scene before the OP was allowed to arm himself, this could be putting him in danger.
Granted, you would never get it to fly in court, but you have to admit, it is irresponsible gun handling.
Wow, I give you props, you actually said something that makes a little sense. About the irresponsible gun handling anyway. Color of law endangerment, not really. That would imply that all unarmed people are in danger, which is not true.
|
Current time is 10:29 pm | Page:   ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   |
|
|
|
