Deserteagle8338
Regular Member
Just to clarify: he was pulled over for a "violation," not a crime. There is a huge difference.
There is no difference. He violated the law. Violating the law is a crime.
Just to clarify: he was pulled over for a "violation," not a crime. There is a huge difference.
There is no difference. He violated the law. Violating the law is a crime.
SNIP Meanwhile, the thread has been hijacked and has changed from what happened on a traffic stop and opinions to how the whole thing went down to one of complying with lawful request to produce required documentation at a traffic stop versus how the government is imposing jackbooted control over our freedoms by asking to see a license and registration for pete's sake.
Yeah! So, M-T, you're the poopy head!
An easily rectified hijack. Lets not overlook DesertEagle's initial hardnosed comment. There is a lot of freedom-minded attitude on this forum; the responses to him were almost predictable.
Let me know when you pass the bar, and tell me your answer to that question then.
Until then, there IS a difference.
Does your wife live at a different address than you?<snip> The car I was driving is registered to my wife. <snip> Meanwhile, here is the officer looking at my driver's license with my name, producing an insurance card, with my name (couldn't find the one for my wife's car) and pawing through the glove compartment for her car's registration... that I couldn't find. Old ones, yeah... but not the current one!!! I don't know where the heck she keeps the darn thing.
So with the scenario above, could it be that this officer had reasonable suspicion that I might have purloined the car? Could it be that he had probable cause to verify the registration through the DMV data base? Could it possibly be that he might suspect I'd been driving around in an uninsured vehicle?
Does your wife live at a different address than you?
Anyway, thanks for additional information.
There is no difference. He violated the law. Violating the law is a crime.
The difference, if such exists, is a red herring when it comes to producing a driver's license in this case. He was operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway. He has to produce his license and registration if requested.
O2
Not a difference. A violation of the law is a violation of the law and that makes it a crime.
Lets look at 2 different definitions of "violation"-
Noun 1. violation - a crime less serious than a felony
2. a breach, infringement, or transgression, as of a law, rule, promise
A violation means you violated something. In this case, he violated the law which is a crime.
Now lets look at "crime"-
noun 1. an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.
Now to tie this all together, driving with one headlight is against the law (legally prohibited) because it is deemed injurious to the public welfare and by doing so, you are violating the law.
Colorado law, aka the Colorado Revised Statutes refers to his driving without a headlight as a Class B infraction. Statutes are laws, and an infraction is a "violation or infringement; breach of a statute, contract, or obligation"
I hope that helps. Otherwise look at the Colorado Uniform Motor Vehicle Law and remember that violating the law is a crime
Did you tell the LEO that the car belonged to your wife? That does not seem to have been mentioned in your posts.<snip>
OC For Me - Post # 31 - Divulging the fact that you are armed when not apparently legally required to do so is a personal choice, no problem there.
There is a huge difference. No violation carries jail time. No violation appears on a criminal record. While some states allow for an arrest for a violation, the chances range from slim to none that it will occur, failing other factors like an outstanding warrant.
Did you tell the LEO that the car belonged to your wife? That does not seem to have been mentioned in your posts.
SNIP As to the fact that I informed him... voluntarily... that I was armed, I felt it a matter of 'citizen safety'. By informing him of my status as a legally armed carrier, he had no room to make a massive mistake or overreact if he found out by other means and reacted in a manner inappropriate. Sure, I did not need to inform, and there is no requirement that I can recall whereby I must inform. Not informing is within my rights. But I ain't willing to be 'dead' right, especially over a traffic stop!
I personally choose to pick my fights, along with my battlefield. As other have noted, the side of the road isn't the best place to assert rights to somebody that can usurp them with superior numbers and firepower.
By the way, as I pulled away from the stop, I noticed a second squad car had pulled up behind the cop that stopped me. I have no evidence, considering I never even knew he was there, but I'll wager that second cop was out of his car and standing at the 4-6 oclock behind my car ready to shoot if I produced a weapon!
Like I said, I'd much prefer to pick my battles and the field of combat. Beside the road is a poor place to make a fuss over rights when I am poorly positioned to defend them. I ain't willing to be 'dead' right in a fight over a burnt out headlight! I am no relative nor decendant to George Armstrong Custer!
Your definitions are not legal. A "crime" is a misdemeanor or felony which must be tried in the criminal justice system. You must appear. A violation is a lesser offence carrying no legal ramifications other than the possibility of being fined for violating an ordinance and can be administratively disposed of, to wit: sending in a check for the fine. You can "violate" the law by commiting a felony. That, however, is not a violation as termed in legal code. Infraction = violation, btw, depending on the state, but violation is the general common law term.
No offense, but I'm not buying it.
Back to the stuff I'm not buying. You see, you've been pretty cop-supportive and willing to waive rights in previous posts. I don't think your real reason is something about not exercising rights because you can't fight and win. That rationale means you won't exercise your rights to buy food or take a drink from a public water fountain unless you can deploy a full platoon with all the gear and terrain advantage to win pretty much any opposition to you exercising those rights. You see, it doesn't add up.
M-Taliesin, if you wanna gain some insight into CO driving issues. You might be interested in reading Here