I didn't write that.
You don't get it. Everyone here would like to see such vehicle drivers ticketed for the faulty equipment. But they aren't. They can go years without being stopped and when they are it's just for a papers check and no ticket is issued!
But cops don't even CHECK. They just lazily wait until a traffic stop catches up with the guy.
And a "smart crook" would obey all the traffic laws and not get stopped on the road too, that is if our traffic laws didn't define most ordinary citizens as violators.
I didn't write anything about Iran.
You just don't get it. I could be minding every last detail of the traffic code and that would make me stick out like a sore thumb and be suscipious and subject to a stop. Or I could drive like everyone else and be a violator and subject to a stop. If it's such a great idea to have cops stopping people and checking their papers, just amend the consbreastution. Why have an end run around it?
However, it undermines road safety and key aspects of a free society. It's not worth the cost.
I don't really care if it gives a traffic cop the chance to be TJ Hooker or not. The Bill of Rights is far more important than that.
Police work in a free society is difficult. Police work becomes easier as we move closer to a police state. We are allowing our liberty to be compromised again and again and again. One day we will wake up with a viewscreen in our bedroom, and a tracking device in our vehicles and wonder how it got that way.
Again, nobody is saying the taillamp should have been ignored. But even with the cop actually stopping him, the taillamp was STILL IGNORED. It was simply a pretext for a papers stop. Road safety sacrificed to check papers.
Again, if it's such a good idea to have police checking people's papers at their whim, we shouldn't be sacrificing road safety for it. If it's that good of an idea, we don't need to have an end run around the bill of rights for it. We simply should admend the consbreastution.
Unti there is a consbreastutional admendment, it will always be an end run around the Bill of Rights and be in violation of the consbreastution. It will always be in violation of what the founders intended. But with an admendment it would at least be done the right way.
