The stream is nearly never-ending, with at least a story a day to remind those of us who desperately want to believe that we have not dedicated our professional careers to a world run by the ignorant and the insane. Every once in a while, however, stories arise that are just too absurd to ignore. Today is such a day.
Reason 194, Only Criminals Will Buy Pontiacs
Via the Inquisitor, a fellow was stopped in his factory standard Pontiac G8 and ticketed for having illegal tail lights.
The judge actually told me she didn’t care what the manufacturer said, what the federal govt said, what the DOT # stamped onto my taillights said if the officer says my lights aren’t legal then they’re not legal. I took the G8 sales brochure in along with pics of my car and other G8 GT’s and the VIN trace by 3 different dealers saying my lights were factory none of it mattered she found me guilty of failing to display or reflect red light on the rear of the car. Didn’t matter the reflectors were in the bumper, didn’t matter where the light is has that little red circle, the whole lens isn’t red so they’re not legal. Also where the back-up and turn signals are should be the reflectors according to the cop so the V6 cars lights aren’t legal either.
Judge stupid went on to tell me that maybe I should consider trading in or selling the car since its not legal in MD and that I’m going to continue to get the $60 tickets till I get rid of the car.
While there are many variables in law, often requiring judges to think really, really hard about things before issuing a decision, this isn’t one of them. I know, the cop said so and you’re a judge and have to validate whatever a cop says. Really, it’s a dilemma. Yet there are limits, say like the Interstate Commerce Clause, which prevents a state from criminalizing a car design feature that’s been approved by the DOT. Even Maryland has to go along with it. Didn’t it strike you as kinda weird that Pontiac was part of this tail light criminal conspiracy? Even a little bit?
Reason 195, There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
Via Fox6 in Shorewood, Wisconsin, another child predator taken off the streets.
Ava Hernandez got a disturbing voicemail message from the Assistant Principal of Shorewood High School in March. Her 15-year-old brother Adam has been taken into police custody.
Adam was accused of stealing chicken nuggets from a $2.60 meal. Those are the nuggets his friend, Gakaree Garner, gave to him. Garner says, “Although that month I was fasting so I couldn’t eat meat, and we had chicken nuggets that day.”
Garner gave the nuggets to Adam, who got in the lunch line to get some sauce for them. According to Garner and the police report the cafeteria cashier told the Assistant Principal Adam stole the chicken nuggets. The Assistant Principal then told the police officer in the school, who called a squad car. Garner says, “They actually put him in handcuffs, and actually tried to force him into the car.”
But he didn’t steal the nuggets, you say? Hah!
Ava Hernandez says, “They were like, ‘Well do you know that friend receives federally free lunch?’, and I said, ‘I do now.’, and they said, ‘Well, it’s illegal to share a free lunch so either way Adam was breaking the law’.”
The article neglects to mention whether the lunch lady tackled Adam to the ground and beat him to a pulp, lest he abscond with the nuggets and destroy the evidence. But before anyone jumps into the fray to offer their pro bono services, the power of the media has already had its influence.
After garnering media attention the Shorewood Police Chief and High School Principal decided to withdraw the theft charges against Adam Hernandez, thus canceling scheduled court proceedings.
That leaves only federal authorities to right this wrong.
So here’s the point, lest anyone read this far and not see any problem. Judges, cops, even a high school principal, are nice, reasonably educated folks who are given power over others and entrusted to use it with a modicum of intelligence, thought and discretion. They aren’t expected to be perfect. Not even pretty swift. Just not fall below the level one would require of a brick. And we can’t seem to manage this.
[Rhetorical question warning] This is a nation of about 300 million people. Can’t we find smarter people than this in whom to repose great power?
Update: Via Radley Balko, the fathers of the Chicago suburb of Elmhurt will not tolerate their daughters’ eye rolling at a public meeting.
Elmhurst officials are considering creating a “disturbance and disorderly conduct” violation after a resident accused of rolling her eyes and sighing was ejected from a public meeting.
Ald. Stephen Hipskind said Darlene Heslop rolled her eyes and sighed while attending a June 14 committee meeting.
City Attorney Don Storino has been directed by the city’s finance and council affairs committee to look at various sources including “Robert’s Rules of Order,” Illinois state statutes and policies adopted by other municipalities for a legal definition of disorderly conduct and disruptive behavior.
Heslop also sighed at the meeting. First eye rolling, then sighing. What’s next? Asking questions? This plague of criminal behavior must be stopped before all the children are shooting heroin. But the big question is whether the City Attorney will be able to complete his research in time.
H/T Pontiac G8 and reasonableness aficionado, Colin Samuel
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am going to stop reading you before I have my 2nd cup of coffee. This is really beyond absurd. When can we get off this crazy train?
At other message boards they are saying that the defendant admitted to painting his taillight covers and removing some paint and adding other paint with the net result that he considered the lights as being back in unmodified condition.
I haven’t taken the time to get all the way to the bottom of this, but there seems to be some reason to suspect that the taillights were modified. For example, there is supposedly a pic of the offending vehicle (taken prior to the ticket) where the taillights clearly had been painted over. Maybe the defendant really did get all the paint off, maybe he didn’t. Bottom line: I am reserving judgment on this one.
As to the other message boards, commenters questioned whether they were painted black, etc., because that’s what some people do to modify these cars for show. Most lawyers don’t consider speculative comments by persons unknown to trump a clear statement from someone with personal knowledge. You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want.
As to your reserving judgment, were you of the view that the point of this post was to obtain your approval?
I would advise that you check out, for instance, the update to the story at the “techdirt” site (go to the site and search “G8”).
I thought your point of posting the story was that it is an abuse of power story. My point was that I am reserving judgement as to whether it was an abuse of power story or something else. Hopefully I have not strayed from the commenting rules here.
I did check out the techdirt site, which is why I said what I said. And you haven’t stayed from the rules. I’m just having fun messing with you, since you’ve taken the view that your withholding of judgment is important enough that it’s worthwhile for others to know about.
Okay. I was inclined to believe the story about what went down in court when I thought the full story was that they were unmodified lights. The new story about modifying the lights and completely unmodifying the lights sounds a bit more to me like a “dog ate my homework” story (that is, a firsthand knowledge story that is self-serving story but could be true but still raises red flags).
That’s not what I read over there, and I’m a little surprised that you repeat it. Commenters are giving multiple hearsay claims about what other commenters say they saw. They are all over the place on the speculation and claims, but I don’t see any first hand information that supports the lights being modified. Nothing. Just because a commenter (especially one using a pseudonum) says “this is what it is” doesn’t mean that it’s correct or first hand.
Now, you’ve commented three times, and your comment wasn’t helpful the first time since you have neither information nor knowledge beyond repeating the ramblings of unknown other commenters. I’ve read them as well, and disagreed. I assume you will post again because you feel compelled to try to get in the last word. My advice is don’t do it. If you can’t bear the idea of stopping when you think you’re right and I’m wrong, then start a blog where you can expound on your thoughts as much as you desire.
On the other hand, it the OP has posted a different set of facts, now admitting that his initial post was inaccurate, then we have an entirely different story. That would be a comment of interest.
Here is directions on how to get to what the OP posted (and then deleted) that have people (appropriately suspicious:
Do a GOOGLE search on the following:
“New mods include the GXP front end, gunmetal wheels”
Include the quotes. One result should come up. Hit the link marked “Cached” at the end of the one GOOGLE search result. Look at the first post on the cached thread that comes up.
Or, one could always just go straight to the source of the information, Dave. From Jacklope in response to the spurious comments:
This is why we don’t take info from commenters as Gospel, and why the compulsion to continue commenting when there’s nothing to add is not appreciated.
Lets look at the facts here:
1. He puts up a picture of his car with modified taillights.
2. He gets a ticket.
3. He attempts to delete the pictures of his car with the modified taillights.
4. He goes to court and loses.
5. He comes back to the internet and claims that he told the judge he had unmodified taillights, but she sustained the ticket anyway. He doesn’t mention that at certain times in the past the taillights on that vehicle have modified by him.
6. People find pictures of his car with the modified taillights that he thought he had deleted.
7. He comes back to the internet and claims that: (i) yes, that was his vehicle in the pictures; but (ii) no, he had changed the modified lights back to unmodified lights between the time the picture was taken and the time he received the ticket.
The analysis of his claims:
Maybe, maybe not. I am not taking his word as Gospel truth. He might be telling the truth. One other plausible possibility is that he had on the modified taillights at the time of the ticket and then changed back to the unmodified taillights and then lied about what happened to the judge in court and to us on the internet.
Taking down the pictures of the modified taillights, without explaining himself until after he was caught, seems like some indication of possible dishonesty. Now he seems to be arguing, in that thread SHG points out, that he didn’t deserve the ticket even if he had been pulled over with the modified lights. The guy is not covering himself in credibility here, and that applies both to what he says about the day he was ticketed, and also what he says happened in court.
Assuming anyone else cared as much as you do about this, the thread is there for others to read, including his explanation for his removal of the pics (his plates were in the photos and he didn’t want to be a target for every cop in Maryland after this case went viral) and that the focus on his tail lights missed the point in any event since his conviction was for the rear deflectors that were in his bumper, which the judge held to be illegal.
Now I’ve let you argue this ad naseum, to no avail. If others wonder, they can look themselves and make up their own mind. Your opinion, fascinating though it may be, has been stated. Got it?
I’m finding the taillight story fishy. I’ll reserve judgment until Breitbart tells me what to think.
If you can’t trust Andrew Breitbart . . .
The motorist isued the citation for illegal lights does not state that he had legal represention, so presumably he did not. This begs the question from those of us who have determined that the administration of the law is a joke: Would the outcome have been different had the defendant had an attorney? Would the LEO been all winks and smiles? Would the judge have had momentary clarity of thought before making such an asinine statement about not caring whether the vehicle lights met DOT standards and were stamped with the appropriate mark[s] proving that?
I’d sure hate to get in front of this judge as a defendant who was charged with videotaping the police in a public place.
Frankly, I’m a bit skeptical of this guy’s claim as I could not find where he posted the name of the judge or the LEO. I would have, without reservation. I realize that the names could be there but I just failed to find them.
Finally, whether his allegations are true is beside the point because for the purpose of your post you accept the allegations as the truth. That being said, if this guy had an attorney would the outcome have been different? This is why I believe people perceive the law as a joke – the common perception is if you pay an attorney you are more likely to prevail if you are in the right, not guilty, innocent, whichever.
The author of the taillight post should have published the names. The truthful written word on the internet will become to the judicary what a populace armed with cameras’ have become to law enforcement.
Of the possible reasons to be skeptical of the claim, the failure to name the judge or cop isn’t one of them. To most non-lawyers, doing so is tantamount to making them a target for future police retaliation, and normal people prefer not to attract more police attention. That you would have done so is irrelevant. That’s your choice, and others aren’t obliged to do as you would prefer them do.
As for not having a lawyer, it was a foolish choice. Jackalope explains his reason as being that he thought his defense was a slam dunk and that he wouldn’t need to spend the money on a lawyer. Whether having a lawyer would have changed the situation is purely speculative, though it certainly would have been a better idea than going in naked.
The initial post asked rhetorically:
“This is a nation of about 300 million people. Can’t we find smarter people than this in whom to repose great power?”
The Answer is: NO.
A harmonious and abundant free society relishes self-government. As much as possible, people should be responsible for governing themselves under a simple and clear set of rules.
The idea of finding “smarter people” and then giving them “great power” is an idea going the opposite direction.
Americans should be always suspicious of large government organizations that promise to run their lives for them. Government schools currently teach kids to obey government and elect people to run their lives for them. That’s the problem — not the solution.
Thanks for the simplistic libertarian perspective.
Actually, the idea that people should be free to run their own lives, under a set of neutral laws, is not simple. It requires a worldview to implement, and the worldview must be shared by the people.
The idea of “let’s find somebody smart to rule us” is the rather simplistic solution, as it leaves all the important questions to supposed “experts.” And in a society that features voting, the “experts,” to whom we delegate “great power,” are selected by other people anyway. That just doesn’t sound like the recipe for a successful free society.
Unfortunately, you missed the point of the post as well as the rhetorical question. It was neither a solution, nor a suggestion that we should entrust great power to anyone.
It turns out we agree on the key point after all. That’s superb. Thank you for the dialogue. All the best.