Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Citizen pulls over cop for unlawful behavior, issues warning

  1. #1

    Citizen pulls over cop for unlawful behavior, issues warning

    http://www.autoblog.com/2014/10/20/c...ice-car-video/
    Dog bites man, that's not news. Man bites dog, now that's news. Or so goes the old newspaper adage, and we see it manifested all the time. Take this latest video clip for example. While it wouldn't usually be news to see a cop pulling over a motorist, seeing a motorist pulling over a cop and asking to see ID is another matter entirely.

    The video comes courtesy of one Gavin Seim, a self-styled liberty activist and former congressional candidate from Washington State's 4th district. In this instance, Seim is advocating (and civically enforcing) a law on the books in Washington that precludes law enforcement officers from patrolling in unmarked vehicles, a measure designed so that motorists know they're being lawfully pulled over by police and not by an impersonator.

    Seim sees a sheriff's deputy patrolling in an unmarked, plain-white Dodge Charger, so he flags him down and – in as clear a reversal of roles as we've ever seen – proceeds to ask the deputy for ID while alerting him to the state law which he's apparently violating. Fortunately, both parties act respectfully, as you can see from the video which Seim captured and posted online in both edited and full versions.
    Non-violence is the creed of those that maintain a monopoly on force.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    We could all learn something from this guy.

    Holding cops accountable while not being combative. Wow.
    Non-violence is the creed of those that maintain a monopoly on force.

  4. #3
    I ripped my laughing muscles when he said "Is it such a big deal to show some ID" I was like... damn that is 100% exactly what they would say.

  5. #4
    All I can say is....wow! And we need laws like this everywhere.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  6. #5
    That was so cool.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  7. #6
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    6
    Posts
    8,669
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Just saw this is a major top story feature on the front page of Yahoo news. lol.

    Over a 1,000,000 views too.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    Just saw this is a major top story feature on the front page of Yahoo news. lol.

    Over a 1,000,000 views too.
    Thats amazing! Just tweeted it. So nice when videos with this message go viral.

  9. #8
    So did the officer stop patrolling with the unmarked vehicle?
    Support Justin Amash for Congress
    Michigan Congressional District 3



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    So did the officer stop patrolling with the unmarked vehicle?
    LOLno.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sister Miriam Godwinson View Post
    We Must Dissent.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikender View Post
    LOLno.
    Well he better be careful. I'll bet next time he'll get more than a warning.
    Non-violence is the creed of those that maintain a monopoly on force.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by limequat View Post
    Well he better be careful. I'll bet next time he'll get more than a warning.
    "The cop reached for my sidearm I swear."

    If only I heard that one more often.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sister Miriam Godwinson View Post
    We Must Dissent.

  14. #12
    very interesting conversation happening in the yahoo comments.

    RCW 46.08.065 Publicly owned vehicles to be marked — Exceptions. " This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, or any vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes."

    Read that sentence specifically the word "or". I think that sentence says the cops and sheriffs are exempt from the "must be marked" laws that this guy "pulls" a cop over for.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by jbauer View Post
    very interesting conversation happening in the yahoo comments.

    RCW 46.08.065 Publicly owned vehicles to be marked — Exceptions. " This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, or any vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes."

    Read that sentence specifically the word "or". I think that sentence says the cops and sheriffs are exempt from the "must be marked" laws that this guy "pulls" a cop over for.
    So by definition, if the cop is using it for traffic enforcement, it is neither undercover nor confidential investigative purposes.
    Non-violence is the creed of those that maintain a monopoly on force.

  16. #14
    Right but if thats what it meant the the law would read:

    RCW 46.08.065 Publicly owned vehicles to be marked — Exceptions. " This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, AND any vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes.

    Instead it says: RCW 46.08.065 Publicly owned vehicles to be marked — Exceptions. " This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, OR any vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes.

    When you start listing exceptions. It says sheriffs, cops..................................OR (which separates off the cops/sheriff) peace officicers who are undercover. That should mean that cops and sherrifs are exempt. Plus if you're a peace officer in a special investigation...such as an FBI agent or something similar that you're also exempt.

    This guys entire 1M hits are a misinterpretation of the statue.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by limequat View Post
    So by definition, if the cop is using it for traffic enforcement, it is neither undercover nor confidential investigative purposes.
    Disagree. It says peace officers who are undercover are exempt.

  18. #16
    Try reading Gavin's blog where he explains the law:
    http://callmegav.com/2014/10/citizen...gives-warning/

    Don't give cops an inch!
    Last edited by BrooklynZoo; 10-22-2014 at 11:26 AM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    MYTH: The spin machine asserts that since the word “OR” is in the sentence it must therefore separate the structure. They assert that exempt vehicles include “sheriff AND “local police” AND “local peace officers” undercover. While it can be a tad confusing when you think about it, it does not take an expert linguist to debunk this lie and it would never stand in court. The wording is actually clear.

    FACT: “undercover or confidential investigative” requirement applies to all the vehicles in that sentence. Why? If that sentence did in fact cover two separate categories of vehicles, they would be noted with an (a) and a (b). This is how RCW’s are written and it’s done in the very next sentence which reads: “This subsection shall not apply to: (a) Any municipal transit vehicle operated for purposes of providing public mass transportation; (b) any vehicle governed by the requirements of subsection (4).” When clear separation is worded in, it’s made very clear...
    This is much like debating the 2nd Amendment about comma placement. This is a law written in 1937 and the way in which many laws were phrased is different than more contemporary laws.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynZoo View Post
    This is much like debating the 2nd Amendment about comma placement. This is a law written in 1937 and the way in which many laws were phrased is different than more contemporary laws.
    Could very well be. I'm just reading it just like any other citizen might and came to a different conclution. I guess the "true" definition should be left to a jury of our peers.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynZoo View Post
    This is much like debating the 2nd Amendment about comma placement. This is a law written in 1937 and the way in which many laws were phrased is different than more contemporary laws.
    This brings me back to one of the most difficult graduate courses in computer science I ever took: The Algebraic Specification Of Software. The text was from Springer-Verlag, infamous for it highly abstruse publications. One of the things into which the instruction touched, albeit briefly, was the notion that algebraic specification could be applied to the formulation of law such that no possible alternative interpretations were possible. While he failed to full grasp the fact that his assertion turned upon the assumption that the definition of words were held constant and perfectly clear and complete. That is a big assumption that generally fails to hold, as we all know from our daily experience. But, if the definitions could he corralled sufficiently, such algebraic specification would indeed achieve the goal of providing the means of constructing law that was clear, complete, correct, and sufficient to their intended function.

    The concept of defining laws in terms of constructed algebras is not without merit or intrigue. Whether its use would change anything... I am doubtful because I can tell you from first hand experience that you need to be a first-class mathematician to be able to parse the semantics properly. In those days I was at the top of my game as a mathematician and was middling in terms of my talents. I had certain difficulties, shall we say, with construction. Less with interpretation, I admit, but still some algebras were a serious challenge. Now, imagine setting your typical nitwit judge to such tasks. I don't think it would work out very well. You would have to place top-drawer double majors in law and mathematics at the appellate level (at the very least) in order to best ensure that justice did not run amok even worse than it does now.

    Unfortunately, as I think about this further, I realize that even this method is open to corruption. With zero credibility, any judge could simply say "Law X says this" and an army of well trained mathematicians could go on all day about how he was full of $#@! and what would it matter? Theye always prevail in the fundamentals and that is where we are so screwed to the barn door.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  23. #20

  24. #21
    “The bill is intended to provide better public visibility of government owned vehicles and to provide a means for more efficiently marking vehicles operated by the state and units of local government, ...A vehicle marking exemption for vehicles used by sheriffs, local police and local peace officers is continued but is limited to vehicles used for undercover or confidential investigative purposes.” — Washington State Legislative Auditor Thomas R. Hazzard, January 31, 1975.

  25. #22

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynZoo View Post
    “The bill is intended to provide better public visibility of government owned vehicles and to provide a means for more efficiently marking vehicles operated by the state and units of local government, ...A vehicle marking exemption for vehicles used by sheriffs, local police and local peace officers is continued but is limited to vehicles used for undercover or confidential investigative purposes.” — Washington State Legislative Auditor Thomas R. Hazzard, January 31, 1975.
    Well there we go. At least in this case we can clearly see what the "intent" of the law was.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-13-2014, 06:25 PM
  2. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 03-21-2012, 11:59 AM
  3. Obama Issues Executive Order: Lifestyle Behavior Modifiaction
    By Working Poor in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-17-2010, 08:19 AM
  4. FDA issues health warning concerning e-cigarettes.
    By jdmyprez_deo_vindice in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-23-2009, 08:04 AM
  5. EPIC, citizen pulls over Sheriff
    By Uriel999 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 03:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •