That means they’re monitoring them … Gotta exploit that, see what happens.

What are you talking about.

Nothing. Discovered mine long before.

Diversity, my friend. What will you do if the 401k doesn’t come through like you want? Bear in mind that the ultra rich and the big banks employ people who are really good at investing money. They have more experience and information than you. They’ll bail themselves, but not you, out in case of disaster.

“Show me the money” is not a good motto for long term savings. Inflation or poor investment can make that money disappear easily enough. Of course you don’t want to get scammed, so oversight is a good idea.

Not quite tho. He has lost in court several times. Paid for it. Forced to be there when the judge ordered it. And we shall see what happens in a few months.

But anyway, it’s no secret that the ultra rich don’t need to obey the law. That’s old news, sad to say.

People really do steal cars, my friend. A tow truck is a great way to do that, in fact. Disguising oneself as a legitimate worker is a classic tactic, not limited to the car theft world.

Did you watch the video? Your facts don’t quite match what it showed. He gave the cops his papers, and then he closed the window, because he didn’t need it open until they got back with his ticket. That’s when they started power tripping. If they wanted him out of the car, all they had to do was wait 10 or 20 seconds. It really was that simple. But they wanted violence, so that’s what they created.

What’s actually dangerous to cops? The number one thing is bad driving by the cops themselves, which is the leading cause of death for officers on duty. During the pandemic, the pandemic itself was the other leading cause I think, because many officers didn’t believe in it and they put themselves at risk.

Every year US cops shoot and kill over a thousand people. Many of those people are innocent. The risk to the average citizen is high, but the risk to the cop is much much lower. The last numbers I saw were in the hundreds, in the low hundreds, but it might even be lower than that. And now you’re trying to carve out a special situation, where the cop is not shot when they first approached the car, but is only later shot after they already got the papers from the driver, and specifically because the driver closed their tinted window. I wonder if you can find even a single example of that happening in the last year. This is an issue that I tend to pay attention to, and I can’t think of it happening in recent history.

And you might want to argue that we should err on the side of caution. First of all, that’s not the law of the land. The Constitution doesn’t allow you to do that. Second, if the situation is as rare as I think it is, almost or entirely non-existent, then what you’re talking about is paranoia. In that case, you need a psychologist, not an open window. Third, the threat to the driver and passengers is real. If the cop makes a mistake, they may draw their gun and shoot people in the car. What if an acorn falls near them? They might shoot the driver. Sadly, this is a very real situation, unlike your hypothetical. In other words, the facts are not on your side here.

I know. And many of the comments are coming from the US, so I’m trying to help American readers see what US law would dictate in a similar situation, because they might have instincts that are inconsistent with US law.

Many companies love undocumented workers. Easy to abuse, underpay, overwork. So of course they hate it when those workers can easily get documented or citizenship. Following the law is such an annoyance. Cuts into the profit margin. That is why big business and the nationalists often work together.

The nationalists kinda know they’re getting played to generate corporate profits, but they also enjoy having a target to look down on.

In the US, the 4th Amendment says that’s unconstitutional. Fortunately. Too many dirty pigs out there.

In the US, the cops need RAS to handcuff you. The standard was never and is not “until they know what’s going on”. And RAS depends on the current cop knowledge. Even if they had legal grounds to break into your place, what they see in the next ten seconds is still relevant. For example, if someone said you attacked them with a knife, when the cops see no victim, knife, or blood, their legal authority ceases.

Of course it’s all highly dependent on specific details.

(On traffic stops, often they already have RAS. That’s why they pulled you over. So don’t be fooled by other comments about that topic.)

In the US, property records are public records. Easy to find someone’s address online if you know their full name and the county they own property in.

Go try it!

The legal standard in the U.S. is if there’s exigent circumstances. Detailed 911 calls are typically sufficient to meet that standard. Not always.

Right now, we cannot tell if the officers did anything unlawful. Need the call recording or call logs, plus the body cameras.

(I think the exigent circumstances standard is BS, easily abused, but that is the current law of the land.)

I agree that the 24-hour news cycle is pretty horrendous and leads to a lot of unneeded political badness. At the same time, going back to the old style of political news is also a mistake. Hell, it let Nixon get reelected.

Rather than either of those options, it’s important for people to realize that they are actively consuming the news, and one way to protect themselves from being manipulated is to consume the news in different ways and from different sources. It’s surprisingly easy to do that these days, if you have a couple of different social media accounts or use an RSS reader, for example. Of course there are many other ways. It is our own personal responsibility to be active and aware enough to avoid getting manipulated in predictable ways.

He was waiting to receive his ticket. All they had to do was wrote the ticket. What was obstructed, other than their egos? … This is contempt of cop, nothing more.

You didn’t explain, which suggests shadiness, but let’s assume better… Let’s assume you didn’t understand what I meant.

Cops can let you stay in the car. They can make you get out, if they have solid grounds to do so. That’s relatively simple, and it lets cops choose the best location for the interaction. So it’s safe for the cops (but not the occupants). Whatever, that’s the law, OK.

But they can’t have it both ways. If they let you stay in the car, they’ve already decided you probably aren’t going to grab a gun from under the seat. So there’s no safety issue for them.

But there is for you. They might reach in the window, for example, violating your civil rights. It would be better for them to have to open the door. It’s easy to see big actions on dash and body cameras, and it’s harder to write them off as accidental. You could even keep your door locked. After all, who knows if the cops stopping you are upstanding citizens. Who will vouch for their character, my friend?

Lock the door, crack the window as necessary, get out when ordered, always film the pigs. This is 100% legal common sense. Or don’t, and risk your own safety. It’s your life.

Sure did. But I’m sure you knew that.

I suppose that would be a good example, wouldn’t it.

I don’t know. I slept through a bunch of high school classes, but I heard that people studied that kind of stuff.

I’m totally okay with people pointing out the fact that the man is a creepy sexist jerk face. And I’m totally okay with people doing it a lot, because he has too much power, and you can’t just pretend he doesn’t exist and that his actions don’t matter.