Darn and I was waiting to get home so I could actually
hear it!! Stupid PCs at work dont have speakers or
sound cards for that matter!!
Alberto
--- Rick Barnes <rascal@scrtc.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, cops don't want the public to see the video of
> them being trained to
> hassle citizens.
>
> Rascal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On
> Behalf Of Chad Evans
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:24 PM
> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> Subject: RE: DML: RE: stickers = street racer
>
>
> there is no more video up to look at. It has been
> taken down due to
> copyright infringement or so they say.!!
>
>
> >From: "Rick Barnes" <rascal@scrtc.com>
> >Reply-To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> >To: <dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net>
> >Subject: RE: DML: RE: stickers = street racer
> >Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:16:35 -0600
> >
> >
> >All good points Jon. I wonder if they take into
> account that many
> >modifications that we do to our cars/trucks improve
> performance, give us
> >better gas mileage, and reduce emissions. They
> want us all driving stock,
> >little bicycles...
> >
> >Rascal
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> >[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On
> Behalf Of
> >jon@dakota-truck.net
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 11:45 AM
> >To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
> >Subject: Re: DML: RE: stickers = street racer
> >
> >
> >"Andy Levy" <andy.levy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >: On 3/14/06, Rick Barnes <rascal@scrtc.com> wrote:
> >:>
> >:> Gustapo! California Department of Automotive
> Repair? Man, California
> >is
> >SO
> >:> screwed up. No wonder its population is
> actually going down...the guy
> >is
> >:> doing nothing wrong, not speeding, driving
> dangerously, just minding his
> >own
> >:> business and gets pulled over and picked on.
> Reminds me of my days as
> >an
> >:> old biker when cops just pulled us over to
> hassle us. They won't do it
> >:> anymore cause so many attorneys ride Harleys
> now. Oh yeah, I was a
> >Miami,
> >:> FL cop at one time....never did this crap to
> anyone. Its just another
> >way
> >:> to screw with people and generate revenue. How
> does Leno get away with
> >:> driving his Toronado?
> >
> >
> > Because he's rich and influential? ;-)
> Actually, that car might be
> >old enough to be exempt from the emissions
> requirements and such, but
> >it still illustrates how stupid the laws are.
> >
> >
> >: Keep in mind that this is a training video.
> >
> >
> > Which is a scary thought in itself. ;-) Oh,
> and could they have
> >picked an actor who was more mis-matched to his
> car? I think this video
> >was probably the first time the guy has ever even
> sat in an import. :-)
> >Speaking of which, if this car had all these
> illegal modifications to it,
> >why do the cops get to drive it on the street to
> make the training film?
> >Was the street shut down to all other traffic, and
> did they obtain the
> >proper permits to film and operate an illegal
> vehicle on a public street,
> >hmmmm? Kinda makes me wonder where the car came
> from in the first
> >place. What do you suppose are the odds that it
> was impounded (stolen)
> >from a US citizen?
> >
> >
> >: The officer pulled the car over initially for a
> true violation - CA
> >: law (like many states) requires both front and
> rear plates, the car
> >: only had a rear. Pretty low on the scale of
> offenses, but it's still
> >: a violation. He then uses this opportunity to
> find other possible
> >: violations. *This happens all the time*. A
> broken taillight is an
> >: excuse to check an otherwise normal driver for
> drunk driving. And so
> >: on.
> >
> >
> > Yep, I don't recall the exact terminology now
> but I think it is
> >something like "primary" vs "secondary"
> enforcement? The secondary
> >items aren't enough to be able to pull somebody
> over for, but if
> >you've pulled them over for a primary violation,
> you can ticket them
> >for the secondary stuff too. In NY, I think seat
> belts used to be
> >secondary but now they are primary.
> >
> > I definitely see Rascal's point though - the
> only "true" reason to
> >pull this guy over is to harrass him, feed your
> superiority complex and
> >extort money. Here's a thought, maybe this wiener
> should spend a
> >little less time harrassing people who are minding
> their own business
> >and not hurting anybody and spend a little more
> time going after people
> >like, oh, I dunno, murderers, rapists, terrorists
> and stuff... I guess
> >things run so perfectly in California that this is
> all they have to
> >worry about? ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >: The real question is, was the driver legally
> required to submit to the
> >: search, or could he have refused?
> >
> >
> > Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. Seems
> like having the guy
> >pop the hood constitutes a search. In the video,
> when the guy required
> >a warrant before the officer could look under the
> hood, they placed him
> >under arrest. (Which is basically the only way to
> proceed if the
> >officer wants to pursue this - you can't detain
> somebody without cause,
> >so at that point they'd either have to let him go
> with the license plate
> >ticket or place him under arrest.) They implied
> that they had the
> >authority to check under the hood to ensure
> compliance. I can see both
> >sides of this one - I can see how they would need
> to be able to check
> >under the hood if it is their job to ensure the
> vehicle meets the legal
> >specs, but it still seems a bit far reaching. I
> believe there are laws
> >about not being able to search the interior of the
> vehicle unless the
> >officer sees something out in the open. Doesn't
> seem right that this
> >same protection wouldn't extend to under the hood.
> It doesn't seem
> >like the police should be concerned with emissions
> stuff anyway,
> >safety equipment yes, but emissions should be
> handled by the inspection
> >stations. And of course, the laws mean very little
> once you get into
> >the courtroom. The gov't can make any law that it
> wants to, wether it
> >is ultimately upheld by the courts and the people
> is another story.
> >(Although I have to admit that it seems relatively
> few laws are sucessfully
> >challenged. Thousands upon thousands of blatantly
> unconstitutional laws
> >remain on the books, unchallenged or upheld due to
> ignorance,
=== message truncated ===
.
.
.------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Make your plans NOW to attend the National DML Meet in Colorado! |
| Date: July 15-23, 2006 - More info: http://meet.dakota-truck.net |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 02 2006 - 18:27:15 EDT