Out Of Control Leo?

[trichcycler]

That incident further magnifies what took place in Ferguson, the use of excess force that seems to be happening across the breath and width of this nation," said NAACP Board Member John Gaskin. "As a man of color, if I'm pulled over, I will be leery of the officer and obey whatever commands they are giving me because at this point you are fearful of your life."

 

It was fear that led one of the children in the back seat, Joseph, 14, to begin recording the incident.

 

"The kids and the family had seen all the news of officers engaging in excessive force and were concerned for their safety," family attorney Dana Kurtz told CNN affiliate WLS.

 

The children were "horrified," said Kurtz. "They received glass shattered into the back seat, they had cuts in their arms. Not only were they harmed physically but they were harmed emotionally as well."

 

"They were scared. Their perception of officers, of police officers who were supposed to be serving and protecting not only them, but us, everyone, has been tarnished for the rest of their lives," said Kurtz.

 

 

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/family-alleges-excessive-force-by-police/29005566

[Norby]

So, they were pulled over for an unjust law and the cops freaked out.  First off, no one should be pulled over for NOT WEARING THEIR SEATBELT!  How the hell did that law go thru.  It serves purely to give police more power to access people in their cars and to make money!!  Why would anyone vote for the right for police to fine you for not wearing your seatbelt?  Why is this not a personal preference ability in a "free" country.  I guess free is just a brand name for the country at this point.

 

People have are loosing respect for LEO and laws at a breakneck pace.

[imiubu]

We didn't get a vote on that Norby.

 

I tried to rebel in the beginning but after 2 seat belt tickets, I now wear the wretched thing.

[knucklehead bob]

Ain't no seat belt on them there motor-sickles , no helmet either , YAY !

 

[Willy]

I remember when michigan started this bunny muffin,, first it was were gonna try it for a while, and no one is to be charged..it wont be a law, its a suggestion.. then shortly there after it was a law,  ,, now we will charge you and make you pay a fine for not using it.. and use it to pull you over so we can fuk with you for anything else we feel like.....

[Willy]

Ain't no seat belt on them there motor-sickles , no helmet either , YAY !

 

No no seat belts, but that pesky helmet law was a biotch for a lotta years .. 

[phaquetoo]

I have no problem with bikers not wearing helmets,,,,,,But I have to say making people in cars wear seat belts and no helmets on motor cycles, is plain nonsense and idiotic, that is the kind of people we have making laws!  but hey as long as they are dems we should vote them in becuase they are mm friendly,,NOT!

[cristinew]

I have no problem with bikers not wearing helmets,,,,,,But I have to say making people in cars wear seat belts and no helmets on motor cycles, is plain nonsense and idiotic, that is the kind of people we have making laws!  but hey as long as they are dems we should vote them in becuase they are mm friendly,,NOT!

The Michigan seat belt law was voted in by US  PHAQ And WILL  We the sheep  voted in that law not your  reps,  Just to clear that up,  And i voted NO on the seat belt law,  Maybe you were not old enough to vote then.  But i saw it coming    Campaign  ADS  vote yes,  the police will not pull you over ,  10 years later we have seat-belt check points,

[trichcycler]

Is it a violation of the Constitution for a police officer to act on a misunderstanding of the law? That’s what the Supreme Court asked in its first case of the new term.

 

The story of Heien v. North Carolina begins in 2009, when Nicholas Heien and a friend were pulled over by a sheriff’s deputy in Mt. Airy for a broken taillight. The officer believed North Carolina law required two working lights.

 

Heien nearly escaped the stop with a warning citation, but the officer asked for consent to search the car. A surprise in retrospect, Heien agreed. The search turned up a bag of cocaine.

 

After losing in trial court, Heien appealed the decision, aided by the discovery that North Carolina law actually suggests only one working taillight is needed. Specifically, the law says all vehicles “shall be equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle” [emphasis added]. He argued that the deputy should be held to the same standard that citizens must follow—namely, that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

The intermediate appeals court in North Carolina agreed with Heien, finding that “an officer’s mistaken belief that a defendant has committed a traffic violation is not an objectively reasonable justification for a traffic stop.”

 

But the state Supreme Court reversed, pointing to another statute that refers to “rear lamps” [emphasis added] and concluding that the officer’s “mistake of law was objectively reasonable” and ultimately constitutional. The bag of cocaine was ruled admissible. Heien then turned to the nation’s court of last resort.

 

The Supreme Court has long excused reasonable “mistakes of fact” in permitting a search or seizure. This case asks if “mistakes of law” should be treated the same way.

 

Oral arguments yesterday morning—captured by court artist Art Lien—showed little indication of the ultimate outcome, especially because the Justices spent a good deal of time debating exactly what they would need to rule on. Is it merely a question of Fourth Amendment rights? Or is it also a question of applying a remedy for a violation of those rights?

 

Still, the Justices were very much engaged with the official question at hand—namely, “whether a police officer’s mistake of law can be provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop.”

 

Justice Samuel Alito pressed Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher to define the “reasonableness,” or lack thereof, demonstrated by the deputy.

 

“I don’t mean to ask this in the context of any other body of the Court’s law, just in the common-sense understanding of the term,” he said. “Even if an attorney sat down and read the relevant North Carolina statutes, do you think it would be reasonable for that attorney to conclude that you have to have two functioning brake lights and not just one?”

 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that the deputy was involved in “criminal interdiction” when he spotted Heien’s car. Indeed, the deputy had admitted in trial that the broken taillight was merely a pretext for pulling the car over to investigate criminal suspicion.

 

“So how many citizens have been stopped for one brake light [and] asked to have their car searched?” she asked Robert Montgomery, North Carolina assistant attorney general. “And is that something we as a society should be encouraging?”

 

Justice Elena Kagan suggested the deputy might have read the statute too broadly. “We want [officers] to enforce the law fairly and as written—and not to push every statute to the furthest it could go without being found utterly unreasonable,” she said.

 

A ruling could be announced as soon as January

[Norby]

New York was the first state in the us to pass a seatbelt law in 1984(how fitting) headed by an orthopedic surgeon John States? It is also a primary(the only reason I see in having it a primary is to gain access to your vehicle) law which means they can pull you over for it.  Half the states with seatbelt laws it's a secondary offense.  As far as I know NYS didn't vote on it, it was enacted, but I can't seem to find the info.  Either way I was 15 and had no say anyhow.  New Hampshire(Live Free or Die) seems to be the only state left in the union that doesn't have a law.

[Habenero]

Yeah but look at all the safety stuff required on cars now. Airbags are required by the feds. Ain't no difference between requiring airbags and seatbelts except that airbags cost thousands per car especially if u ever have to replace one!

 

Seat belts cut back on personal injury. That means less money outta the state no fault insurance fund. That means lower insurance rates. To me that's a good thing. I don't wanna pay more for insurance because my neighbor has brain damage from going through the windshield. But yeah they shouldn't be able to pull you over for not wearing it.

[trichcycler]

since day one I never did see a lower insurance rate year to year

[Chauncy Gardner]

Seat belt and helmet laws were/are pushed by insurance companies. With reduced injuries they have reduced claims to pay out.

 

 

Insurance companies make a motorcycle rider choose whether or not they want to wear a helmet. Insurance costs less if a person agrees to wear a helmet. If the person has an accident and wasn't wearing a helmet, the maximum insurance pay out for medical care is reduced.

 

Why can't insurance companies do the same thing with seat belts? Make it the drivers choice. This way the police couldn't pull people over or issue a citation for not wearing a seat belt.

[garyfisher]

Seat belt and helmet laws were/are pushed by insurance companies. With reduced injuries they have reduced claims to pay out.

 

 

Insurance companies make a motorcycle rider choose whether or not they want to wear a helmet. Insurance costs less if a person agrees to wear a helmet. If the person has an accident and wasn't wearing a helmet, the maximum insurance pay out for medical care is reduced.

 

Why can't insurance companies do the same thing with seat belts? Make it the drivers choice. This way the police couldn't pull people over or issue a citation for not wearing a seat belt.

Don't know where you're getting this information.  I'll ask a couple of my other riding buddies but

my insurance company has never asked about a helmet.  My rates have not changed.

[Habenero]

Seat belt and helmet laws were/are pushed by insurance companies. With reduced injuries they have reduced claims to pay out.

 

 

Insurance companies make a motorcycle rider choose whether or not they want to wear a helmet. Insurance costs less if a person agrees to wear a helmet. If the person has an accident and wasn't wearing a helmet, the maximum insurance pay out for medical care is reduced.

 

Why can't insurance companies do the same thing with seat belts? Make it the drivers choice. This way the police couldn't pull people over or issue a citation for not wearing a seat belt.

An insurance company can't give you a choice of rates based on whether you break the law or not. Even if they did do that who in their right mind is gonna say they don't wear a belt?

[bobandtorey]

And if something does happen and you are found that you didn't have your belt on i bet you will not be covered 

[Habenero]

In Michigan they have to cover you. It's no fault insurance so even if you were drunk and totaled your car they still gotta cover it. UR covered regardless of fault.

[trichcycler]

I think he means to say that others are covered when you are a drunk driver, but your own injuries and losses may not be?  I could be wrong, most likely ,even?

[Habenero]

Yeah your own losses are covered. Guaranteed medical coverage but only get collision coverage if you bought more than just PLPD insurance. But if you bought collision then you also get coverage regardless of fault.

[trichcycler]

great, we're going to need a drunk driving lane

[Chauncy Gardner]

Seat belt and helmet laws were/are pushed by insurance companies. With reduced injuries they have reduced claims to pay out.

 

 

Insurance companies make a motorcycle rider choose whether or not they want to wear a helmet. Insurance costs less if a person agrees to wear a helmet. If the person has an accident and wasn't wearing a helmet, the maximum insurance pay out for medical care is reduced.

 

Why can't insurance companies do the same thing with seat belts? Make it the drivers choice. This way the police couldn't pull people over or issue a citation for not wearing a seat belt.

 

Don't know where you're getting this information.  I'll ask a couple of my other riding buddies but

my insurance company has never asked about a helmet.  My rates have not changed.

 

http://www.dmv.org/mi-michigan/insurance/motorcycle-insurance-minimum-requirements.php

 

You are right. There are no different rates for wearing a helmet. They are the same - helmet or not. I "heard" that there would be different rates, but never bothered to check it out. Seemed like a good idea to me though.

[Chauncy Gardner]

great, we're going to need a drunk driving lane

 

Or cars that drive themselves.

[Habenero]

Nothin new tho.