Tuesday, August 18, 2015

The biggest danger for travelers

My son recently came for a visit. An incident along the way caused me to post a somewhat cryptic blog entry, which, since he is back home, I now feel safe to explain.

On his way here, just past Oklahoma City, heading west, he saw flashing lights behind his car. He pulled over. The cop informed him that he hadn't been the "required distance" behind a truck in front of him (so I guess that means the cop claimed my son was driving like a cop, since most tailgaters I see are driving those clown cars with the flashing lights on top).

The cop gave him a warning, then as he was "letting him go", noticed he seemed "nervous". Not sure who wouldn't be nervous while in the presence of a member of the Blue Line Gang- a gang which encourages its members to rob, rape, and murder, and then helps them get away with it. I'm sure just about anyone in the presence of those vermin is nervous.

Based upon this "inexplicable" nervousness (haha), the badged tax junkie asked to search the vehicle. Consent was not given. So, the cop called in the drug dog. At the secret signal, the dog "alerted" and the cops took this as "legal justification" to search the vehicle.

No "drugs" were found, but the self-described "pro-gun, conservative" cops were disturbed by the guns my son was bringing along.

So, the cop forced my son to dial me, and took the phone where my son couldn't overhear (he was in their vehicle, in the front seat).

This is where I became involved.

The cop identified himself as Oklahoma Highway Patrol (or "State police", I forget exactly which). Turns out they were actually the narcotics goons, but cops are allowed to lie. He asked if I was expecting a visit from my son. At this point I was terrified there had been a fatal accident, and my mind was racing. I said I was. He said he had pulled my son over for a traffic violation. The cop then asked if I knew my son was bringing firearms. I said I did. (I didn't explicitly know, but my son always brings guns). He said when questioned, my son initially stated he had no firearms with him- I never asked my son if this was true or not, because it's no one's business, and questions like that don't deserve answers. (Yes, I know: Don't talk to cops!)

Now I knew my son was OK- if he could get out of the hands of the Blue Line Gang. My anger started growing. I kept my cool, though. It is a very good thing that my thoughts (usually) get filtered through my brain before coming out my mouth.

So the cop said he just wanted to make sure because "you can't be too careful these days". Then he paused. And waited. And waited some more. I suspect he was waiting for me to slavishly agree with his silly assertion. I didn't. So after a long, awkward pause, he said he supposed I would see my son in a few hours. I said "OK".

Then, after hanging up, I got madder still. I realized that had my son been "Black" or "Brown", his risk of being murdered on the side of the road would have grown exponentially. And copsuckers would have said he deserved it.

It is completely unacceptable that these pirates are permitted to infest the roadways and molest travelers. It's getting to be that the risk of a cop encounter is replacing the flat tire as the road trouble you simply have to plan to put up with.

I (still) hate cops.



  1. Following too close behind another vehicle is an example of what I would characterize as 'not being cautious'. Thus it is not unreasonable to bring it to a driver's attention in the interest of safety. Stopping him to suggest he be more cautious, and explaining why, is not so bad. Make a point and move on. Don't coerce or harass or demand money, etc. ..Simply make the point as a courtesy and move on.

    Let's keep it real though. He likely didn't stop him for safety reasons, but rather as an excuse, a pretext with intent to violate rights. He wanted to violate privacy and steal property, and/or abduct and imprison a nonviolent person.

    "Nervous" is not a reason to violate rights.

    Given the thousands upon thousands of examples of cops dragging people from their vehicles, beating, tazing or shooting them to death for no good reason, it is entirely reasonable and expected to be nervous when being confronted by a police thug. I will even go so far as to say that it is not unreasonable to shoot cops on sight, considering how they are a clear and present danger to everyone.

    His reasoning for citing nervousness as suspicious was because of the notion that people act nervous when they break the law. His reasoning skills need adjustment. ...as if he had no clue who the bad guys are, as if the law makes it right, as if being nervous about being legally violated is unfounded, as if he has a right to violate, but your son doesn't have a right and reason to be nervous.. Even if the car was packed with heroin, guns and prostitutes, the cop has no right to say anything to him about it.

    God, I hate cops. Is there not an effective and efficient means to kill them all?

    1. According to the cop, you are "required" to be at least 3 seconds behind a big truck, as opposed to 2 seconds behind other vehicles. That violates the realities of physics, but OK. So, "too close" may be "too close" only in the "legal" sense, not in reality.

      If the car had been packed with prostitutes, the visit would have been even more interesting for sure.

    2. "According to the cop, you are "required" to be at least 3 seconds behind a big truck, as opposed to 2 seconds behind other vehicles. That violates the realities of physics, but OK. So, "too close" may be "too close" only in the "legal" sense, not in reality."

      Agreed. It isn't as simple as having a set standard time allotment. It is a physics problem with constantly changing multiple variables, such as time, speed, distance, breaking distance/agility of said vehicles, relative position, traffic congestion, response time of individuals, weather and/or road conditions, etc., etc. etc, ...

      The point I am trying to make is that a policeman's job is(or supposed to be) to act as an extension of the people's right to defense, to provide a safe secure environment. Thus it is not unreasonable for a policeman to bring it to someone's attention should they be doing something potentially dangerous.

      But that's as far as it goes. Beyond that, the cops have no rights or responsibility. If your son was indeed traveling so close that it presented a hazard, the cop was not all that unreasonable to pull him over and bring it to his attention. A simple 5 minute traffic safety lecture would not be a big deal or beyond what is expected from a peace officer. And it is something that would actually benefit your son to know.

      But to keep it real, that's not what cops normally do, nor do I think it was his intent when pulling over your son. He was looking for an excuse to violate him, based on a false notion that he has a right to do so, or that 'nervous' is a foundation for suspicion.

      Fuck that pig.

    3. Consider this;

      It is in the best interest of everyone to have an operable vehicle in order to function properly and safely in traffic. Part of that is communicating to other drivers with brake lights and turn signals.

      So, let's say you have inoperable break lights and rear turn signals. It is in your best interest to be aware of this. So a cop puling you over to bring it to your attention is acting in your(and others') interest. It is a courtesy as to service the community.

      If they did things like have you go to the rear of the vehicle and watch while he sits in your car and steps on the brake or flips the signals, then gives you a coupon for free bulbs provided at a county warehouse or something, (never mind that you have 10 pounds of weed in the passenger seat), then tells you to have a nice day, ...THAT would be acting in service to the community.

      But what do they really do? They pull you over and give you a citation coercing/forcing you to fix it, then use any excuse to violate you, and up to and including deadly force.

      They are nothing but pigs, an occupying army whose primary function is to violate. Thus they are a clear and present danger to all and need to be shot on sight as an act of defense of everyone.

      Again, fuck that pig.

    4. I once had a cop pull me over to tell me my headlight was out. No "papers please"; no threats or warnings. Just a heads up. That was being useful and helpful. A "nice cop", if you will.

    5. A 'nice cop' indeed. He was actually looking out for someone instead of violating and rationalizing it as something else. That cop apparently knows the difference.

  2. I would have been tempted to tell the cop my adult offspring is a responsible adult who doesn't need his mother's permission to travel or have firearms, and why the hell was he bothering me anyway? What if my son was making a surprise visit for my birthday? (Two of my kids have done so.) Would the fact I didn't know he was coming be suspicious, grounds for further hassling him or what? What if I, being stupid, I didn't like guns so my son hadn't told me he had them? Is that grounds to hassle him or what? Jeez.
    I realize none of that would have helped my son under the circumstances. Quite the contrary. I hope, should the situation arise, I'm able to let my brain be in control rather then my temper, as you did. Then when my child is safely home, a blunt letter asking those questions would be sent to the police, with copies to the media. Where the hell does a LEO get off making an adult call a parent as part of a traffic stop?
    Keep up the good work, Kent.