PDA

View Full Version : California have gone to shit



C-Spec
12-19-2005, 01:14 AM
i love Cali, but the rules and regulation have gone to shit. read the following

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/576.asp

BOO5150
12-19-2005, 01:35 AM
Dragnet sucks ass! I'm in San Diego so I know first hand! They pull you over for BS stuff and try to make something out of nothing!

Bills Evo
12-19-2005, 07:21 AM
I wonder what the percentage of serious and fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers as compared to those caused by street racing!? Any serious accident is bad but why single out modified cars? Because the local and state government(s) MAKE MONEY!!! It says so in the f**king report.
Remember, a politcian has two reasons for existing 1. Get elected 2. Get reelected.
Everything else they do is to accomplish one of these two goals. The single best way to do this is to raise money so it will impress the voters enough to make them vote for them.
I read an article in the Orange County Register quite a few years back, and it showed the records of 30 or more people who had killed someone while drunk and they all had done this AT LEAST TWO separate times!!!
Their cars weren't impounded and sold. They lost their license but it DIDN"T KEEP THEM FROM DRIVING AGAIN AND KILLING MORE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And this was in Orange county, just think what the numbers would be if we added in the rest of the country! Why don't they focus on the drunks, they're slaughtering innocent people and the judge does little or nothing. Assholes. Makes me wish I had the money to file a class action lawsuit. Some jerk can break into your house, rape your wife and daughter and yet if you shoot him and kill him or even just injure him YOU are the bad guy and they prosecute you! Is our legal system screwed up or what?? We live in a so-called free country and yet I wouldn't be surprised if this post gets me in deep shit or the popos harass me because of it. It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Chlepper
12-19-2005, 08:02 AM
It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.


+1* :tickedoff: :uglystupid2: :-\ :'( :? :-o :-( :idiot2: >:( :buck2:

Thero
12-19-2005, 09:33 AM
I wonder what the percentage of serious and fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers as compared to those caused by street racing!? Any serious accident is bad but why single out modified cars? Because the local and state government(s) MAKE MONEY!!! It says so in the f**king report.
* * *Remember, a politcian has two reasons for existing* * *1. Get elected* 2. Get reelected.
Everything else they do is to accomplish one of these two goals. The single best way to do this is to raise money so it will impress the voters enough to make them vote for them.
* * I read an article in the Orange County Register quite a few years back, and it showed the records of 30 or more people who had killed someone while drunk and they all had done this AT LEAST TWO separate times!!!
Their cars weren't impounded and sold. They lost their license but it DIDN"T KEEP THEM FROM DRIVING AGAIN AND KILLING MORE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And this was in Orange county, just think what the numbers would be if we added in the rest of the country! Why don't they focus on the drunks, they're slaughtering innocent people and the judge does little or nothing. Assholes. Makes me wish I had the money to file a class action lawsuit.* Some jerk can break into your house, rape your wife and daughter and yet if you shoot him and kill him or even just injure him YOU are the bad guy and they prosecute you! Is our legal system screwed up or what?? We live in a so-called free country and yet I wouldn't be surprised if this post gets me in deep shit or the popos harass me because of it. It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.



Actually I believe the Law states that you can shoot a intruder if they are in your home.

Terry S
12-19-2005, 09:52 AM
Yup, you can shoot an intruder. Just dont say that your obnoxious grandmother was "intruding" so you "defended yourself". :2funny:

Back on topic, that article mentioned Santa Fe Springs and a huge impounding of vehicles... Would these be our favorite SRT-4 boys that keep trying to call some Evo's out there?

Terry S

Bills Evo
12-19-2005, 10:04 AM
I have several cousins who are sheriffs and they said that if you shoot an intruder make sure their body is inside the house when the law shows up. If they are outside when you shoot them then you are at fault! Because they are no longer a threat. Just don't miss when they are inside.

GOOSE_Ej
12-19-2005, 10:56 AM
dude just drive normal and dont race anyone... and ull be fine.. dont give a chance to the cop to pull u over..

OptimusPrime
12-19-2005, 08:36 PM
I live in Santa Fe Springs. All those cars that got impounded are stupid high school ricers. If anyone lives in the surrounding area at all(Whittier, Downey, Pico Rivera, Norwalk, La Mirada), they know that Santa Fe Springs is a small quiet city. I live on Florence and I see 2 Evos all the time, a silver one and a modded out blue one.

R3dline
12-19-2005, 08:48 PM
Im glad I moved out of Cal! Viva Las Vegas ;)

alex_alex
12-19-2005, 11:36 PM
I wonder what the percentage of serious and fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers as compared to those caused by street racing!? Any serious accident is bad but why single out modified cars? Because the local and state government(s) MAKE MONEY!!! It says so in the f**king report.
Remember, a politcian has two reasons for existing 1. Get elected 2. Get reelected.
Everything else they do is to accomplish one of these two goals. The single best way to do this is to raise money so it will impress the voters enough to make them vote for them.
I read an article in the Orange County Register quite a few years back, and it showed the records of 30 or more people who had killed someone while drunk and they all had done this AT LEAST TWO separate times!!!
Their cars weren't impounded and sold. They lost their license but it DIDN"T KEEP THEM FROM DRIVING AGAIN AND KILLING MORE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And this was in Orange county, just think what the numbers would be if we added in the rest of the country! Why don't they focus on the drunks, they're slaughtering innocent people and the judge does little or nothing. Assholes. Makes me wish I had the money to file a class action lawsuit. Some jerk can break into your house, rape your wife and daughter and yet if you shoot him and kill him or even just injure him YOU are the bad guy and they prosecute you! Is our legal system screwed up or what?? We live in a so-called free country and yet I wouldn't be surprised if this post gets me in deep shit or the popos harass me because of it. It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.


I think it has more to do with the fact that most car people never make it to any position signifcant enough to have influence over this type of legislation / enforcement.

Pointing the blame at other evils is almost as good as saying absolutely nothing.

rubelcon
12-20-2005, 07:32 PM
I live in Santa Fe Springs.* All those cars that got impounded are stupid high school ricers.* If anyone lives in the surrounding area at all(Whittier, Downey, Pico Rivera, Norwalk, La Mirada), they know that Santa Fe Springs is a small quiet city.* I live on Florence and I see 2 Evos all the time, a silver one and a modded out blue one.


This actually has everything to do with Stage Road that goes from La Mirada to SFS. There have been street races going on that street for years, and they have always been clamping down on those guys.

BTW.. A good friend of mine is a motorcycle cop in this area. He told me the one rule of thumb that stuck: "If I dont hear you, I don't see you."

Bills Evo
12-20-2005, 08:59 PM
I wonder what the percentage of serious and fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers as compared to those caused by street racing!? Any serious accident is bad but why single out modified cars? Because the local and state government(s) MAKE MONEY!!! It says so in the f**king report.
Remember, a politcian has two reasons for existing 1. Get elected 2. Get reelected.
Everything else they do is to accomplish one of these two goals. The single best way to do this is to raise money so it will impress the voters enough to make them vote for them.
I read an article in the Orange County Register quite a few years back, and it showed the records of 30 or more people who had killed someone while drunk and they all had done this AT LEAST TWO separate times!!!
Their cars weren't impounded and sold. They lost their license but it DIDN"T KEEP THEM FROM DRIVING AGAIN AND KILLING MORE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And this was in Orange county, just think what the numbers would be if we added in the rest of the country! Why don't they focus on the drunks, they're slaughtering innocent people and the judge does little or nothing. Assholes. Makes me wish I had the money to file a class action lawsuit. Some jerk can break into your house, rape your wife and daughter and yet if you shoot him and kill him or even just injure him YOU are the bad guy and they prosecute you! Is our legal system screwed up or what?? We live in a so-called free country and yet I wouldn't be surprised if this post gets me in deep shit or the popos harass me because of it. It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.


I think it has more to do with the fact that most car people never make it to any position signifcant enough to have influence over this type of legislation / enforcement.

Pointing the blame at other evils is almost as good as saying absolutely nothing.
Yes I'm Pointing at what I believe to be the root problem. But claiming that what I'm saying is saying absolutely nothing is stupid because to identify the problem is the first step towards solving it. WE DO have the power to do something about it. 1. We vote in the politicians 2. we can influence them by writing to them and having everyone we know write to them keep on doing this. 3. We can take intelligent and purposeful action to vote them out and vote in someone who will help solve the problem.
OK, take your next shot.

rsmatt
12-21-2005, 01:27 AM
take back your rights, and know your rights. what is probable cause?



The Fourth Amendment has two clauses. The first states that people have a right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the second states that no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause. The roots of the second clause -- the probable cause requirement -- lie in English and American colonial history. Prior to the framing of our Constitution by the founding fathers, the government had virtually unlimited power to believe, right or wrong, that any illegal items they were looking for would be found. In England, this all-purpose power took the form of what were called general warrants; in colonial America, they were called writs of assistance. To protect against the abuses inherent in this kind of power, the Framers added a probable cause requirement.

The probable cause requirement is, in many ways, more important than the reasonableness clause. Not all search and seizures require warrants (e.g., automobile searches, arrest in a public place), but the Supreme Court has interpreted warrantless searches and seizures as unreasonable unless preceded by probable cause. This means that as a general rule, most searches and seizures require probable cause.

It's an example of the procedural law's attempt to balance, or accommodate, competing interests. On the one hand, it protects from arbitrary intrusions into liberty and privacy, but on the other hand, it gives sufficient leeway to government officials by not being as strong of a standard as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. More leeway is granted to law enforcement under the standard of reasonable suspicion (see this Lecture on Stop & Frisk), and the standard of reasonableness under all circumstances used in school searches and sweeps. The Supreme Court has indicated that any exceptions to the probable cause requirement will be few in number. The Supreme Court has referred to its interpretation of probable cause as the "accumulated wisdom of precedent and experience."

DEFINITIONS

The precise meaning of "probable cause" is somewhat uncertain. Most academic debates over the years have centered around the differences between "more probable than not" and "substantial possibility". The former involves the elements of certainty and technical knowledge. The latter involves the elements of fairness and common sense. There's more adherents of the latter approach, but how do you define common sense. Supreme Court case law has indicated that rumor, mere suspicion, and even "strong reason to suspect" are not equivalent to probable cause. Over the years, at least three definitions have emerged as the best statements:

Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution or prudence in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed. (reasonable man definition; common textbook definition; comes from Draper v. U.S. 1959)

Probable cause is what would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that something connected with a crime is on the premises of a person or on persons themselves. (sometimes called the nexus definition; nexus is the connection between PC, the person's participation, and elements of criminal activity; determining nexus is the job of a judicial official, and it's almost always required in cases of search warrants, not arrest warrants)

Probable cause is the sum total of layers of information and synthesis of what police have heard, know, or observe as trained officers. (comes from Smith v. U.S. 1949 establishing the experienced police officer standard)

There are of course, other definitions, and it's a fact of life in criminal justice that different judicial officials use different definitions. Judges will always have the last word on probable cause. Police will use whatever judicial official is available, preferred, or the court system may have a rotating duty roster for judges or magistrates to sit for nothing but warrants. The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule protects the police to some degree in errors made by magistrates (where an appeals court rules that the magistrate signed off too leniently on probable cause). The Sixth Amendment also requires a person arrested without a warrant be brought before a magistrate without delay. This is called First Appearance, and it involves a judicial affirmation of probable cause. Many jurisdictions also still have something called the Preliminary Hearing, and it involves the determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe someone is guilty (not reasonable doubt, but jacked-up probable cause). Modernized court systems combine the First Appearance and Preliminary Hearing into one Probable Cause Hearing (eliminating the redundancy).

There are a few things from other areas of the law that have relevance for the law of probable cause. One of these is the area of privacy. A "search" is in many ways a violation of privacy, a quest for something. Therefore, the Katz definition of privacy (expectation of privacy) prevails and in many ways supplements the particularity requirement (searches cannot be exploratory in hopes of finding something; they must be calculated, looking for something specific). Under Katz, only things a person clearly expects or deems private are protected; anything on display or in a public place is not protected. The area of electronic surveillance is also relevant. States cannot generally give their officers more power than the federal government allows when it comes to technology, but there are loosened restrictions on consent and different definitions of private (e.g., email) under wiretapping law. A "seizure" involves a dispossession of a person's exercise of dominion or control of a thing; the detaining of their body in the case of arrest. The only things that should be seized, as a general rule, are items within Plain View or under the immediate control of a suspect (the Chimel Rule), but in some cases (under conspiracy, racketeering, and asset forfeiture laws), a person can be dispossessed of things faraway and distant (like Swiss Bank Accounts) if the items are instrumentalities or proceeds of the crime. The law of seizure generally recognizes two precedent-setting cases:

on to "looking for stickers", well boys i dont think you can pull me over for stickers. you like the 1st amendment?

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

so in closing it is a violation of my civil rights to be pulled over for, having stickers ( i can run a sticker that says i love to street race and kill cops if i want to), looking modified unless blaitent (window tint has a set law against it. shiny exauhst, gauges, and nice wheels do not), or having an exauhst a cop "thinks" is over the sound limit unless he can prove it. other wise it would be harasment and i can sue, and i will sue. so should you period.

Bills Evo
12-21-2005, 07:06 AM
Nice dissertation RSMATT. Helpful. Let me see if I understand, at least inpart, what you have written.
My nice polished exhaust attracts a cop and he writes me a ticket for 'modifing' my exhaust. (I have been told by a cop that I may not modify/change my exhaust at all.) I hope this doesn't sound ridiculous but what if my oem exhaust gets damaged or gets old and worn out and I go to Midas and get it replaced. I have changed/modified it and am guilty of whatever stupid code the cop decides to use. I go to court to fight it and the judge laughs at me and fines me the max. May I then sue? And if I may sue may the suit include the recovery of all legal costs? What are my chances and whom do I actually sue? The State, county, city, the cop, the cop's mother for not aborting (this last was intended to be humorous)? The problem of being harrassed is greatly compounded by highly biased and prejudiced judges who mostly give cops carte blanche and don't even want to listen to us, the guilty until proven innocent. I tried to not ramble. Bill :idiot2:

rsmatt
12-21-2005, 01:55 PM
Nice dissertation RSMATT. Helpful. Let me see if I understand, at least inpart, what you have written.
* *My nice polished exhaust attracts a cop and he writes me a ticket for 'modifing' my exhaust. (I have been told by a cop that I may not modify/change my exhaust at all.) I hope this doesn't sound ridiculous but what if my oem exhaust gets damaged or gets old and worn out and I go to Midas and get it replaced. I have changed/modified it and am guilty of whatever stupid code the cop decides to use. I go to court to fight it and the judge laughs at me and fines me the max. May I then sue? And if I may sue may the suit include the recovery of all legal costs? What are my chances and whom do I actually sue? The State, county, city, the cop, the cop's mother for not aborting (this last was intended to be humorous)? The problem of being harrassed is greatly compounded by highly biased and prejudiced judges who mostly give cops carte blanche and don't even want to listen to us, the guilty until proven innocent.* * * * * * * *I tried to not ramble.* *Bill :idiot2:
ah yes you are right, we are guilty untill proven innocent* >:( but i would hope we can change that by banning together and not tolerating the abuse of our civil rights any longer. if you look at it from a purist stand piont we have the bill of rights on our side. we just need to make it public how the state is in violation of our rights as well as every one else in california.

this is posible, take the NRA for instance. the NRA and others in the gun lobby took the second amendment all the way to the supreme court and won. and how did they do that you ask.... they did it by making the the object of thier dispute veary public and also demonstrated how it was not just the gun enthusiast that was affected by the new gun legislature, but in fact it was truly a case where all law abiding americans would be striped of a right they are guaranteed as americans. we also can do this because these new laws affect every one. you need to get this through your head, YOU ARE NOT A CRIMINAL. YOU CAN NOT BE TREATED LIKE ONE WITH OUT DUE* * * * *PROCESSES.* this is a case of them invading our rights and it needs to be stoped.

bcmind
12-21-2005, 06:16 PM
too scary to drive the evo out at nite now. :tickedoff: