News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I linked to the full bodycam video, the officer clearly says that there were two reasons for the stop: Headlights and seat belt.
Your video has the AI voice claiming that failing to give a Miranda warning before opening the door is a "clear 4th amendment red flag." That's a load of steaming crap. Moving on to the actual issue at hand, the charge there was for unlawful carrying of a weapon. The judge's decision is that by the officer randomly opening the door of the guy's vehicle, and then seeing the weapon, that means it was an unlawful search (it was "in plain view" according to the officer / prosecutor, but the judge says it wasn't in plain view until you opened the door). That has literally nothing at all to do with the initial stop being unconstitutional, or failure to ID or anything. It's just to do with how the cop found the gun.
Do you have one where the person failed to ID on a traffic stop, and their lawyer was able to make the argument that the initial stop was improper, and so they didn't have to, and it worked? I feel like those would be super-easy to find, if that argument ever worked, since it is very commonly what people say while they are refusing to ID, and so if their lawyers were able to make it work we would have examples of it working.
Well dont I look the fool. I'm pissed off now, I didn't watch the video. Inhave seen like 3 where tthisnsame judge throws out the case based on an illigal stop. Ill find them tomorrow. As to yoir question, you keep leaving oit the illigal part. Yes, not providing ID is an offence if the initial stop is legal. Now you are again correct, the officer does claim that the driver wasn't wearing a seat belt, so I suppose the initial stop can be justified, which makes refusing to ID an offence.
Yeah, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I just don't know of it.
I also like that judge, AI voice aside I feel like he has a perfectly valid point. I also have a feeling he was the same judge I saw scorching a prosecutor one time for cutting a plea deal where it seemed like they could have prosecuted the guy and he was getting away with sexual assault with a pretty minimal sentence, and he was furious at the prosecutor for not doing their job. He couldn't exactly just take over the prosecution's job for them, I think he sent the lawyers away to work out a new plea deal instead, and they came back with one that was still pretty minimal but I think added in some jail time. He sort of yelled at the guy some more and then just approved the plea deal, but if that is the judge I'm thinking of, it seems like he cares a lot about the purpose of what he's doing, which is a really good thing.