How to go From a Broken Taillight to 18 Months in Prison

TDB's picture

Via The Daily Bell

It is amazing the amount of “crimes” one broken taillight precipitated.

A recent court case in Massachusetts highlights the insanity of statute law, versus common law. That is, relying on laws made by politicians, rather than assessing a claim brought by a victim.

Time, money, and freedom are all poured down the drain in favor of arbitrary statutes.

It started with a guy being pulled over for having a taillight out.

He was arrested for not having a license to drive a car. Already, this is a violation of rights. Why should you be forced to pay for a license in order to travel down public roads?

Licensure does little in the way of public safety. It is a vehicle to collect more money and keep track of citizens.

So society says it is better to kidnap a man and throw him in a cage than to allow people the freedom to travel unmolested. He victimized no one but was victimized by the state.

Next, cops saw a gun muzzle poking out of the pocket in the back seat. Apparently, seeing a bit of a gun is probable cause to search. Are guns illegal? No. Ah but again, those pesky licenses! The government requires licenses to exercise rights. You have to pay in order to be free.

When they performed the search, which was based on the gun, which was discovered because no driver’s license, which was revealed because of the broken headlight, the police found he also had some drugs in the vehicle. Add another victimless crime to the rap sheet.

This guy would never have been in the crosshairs of law enforcers at all, except a statute says a car must have two working taillights. Nowhere in any of this did the suspect victimize anyone.

Judges and lawyers then spent time (and thus tax dollars) arguing over things like:

  • Should he be charged with another crime, based on whether or not the gun was loaded?
  • Was there probable cause to find out if the gun was loaded?
  • Did the defendant know the gun was loaded?

The Appeals Court decision acknowledged that “proving knowledge that a firearm was loaded will often be quite difficult,” and that the effect of the ruling will likely be that few people will be convicted under that section of the law.

But the judges concluded that because the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in an earlier case that prosecutors must prove someone knew they were in possession of ammunition, they must also prove someone knew if that ammunition happened to be inside of a gun.

Blah, blah blah, blah blah. Was there a victim? No? Let the guy go. That is how simple true rule of law is.

Unless a law protects a victim, it creates a victim. Laws are not the same thing as the rule of law. Under rule of law, mere possession of an item would not see you imprisoned.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Of Course, the government doesn’t abide by the rights enumerated in the Constitution, let alone implied rights.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
economicmorphine's picture

The reason you are required to have a license is not to "drive" down the road but to operate a piece of heavy machinery capable of harming others and property.  In other words, there's a public interest in meeting some minimum standard.  Then we come to drugs in the vehicle which is indeed victimless right up until the moment he wipes out a school bus full of kids.  Then, of course, it's too late.  No, I'm sorry.  Douchebags who haven't figured out how the system works or have a stick up their ass and want to tilt at windmills are gonna get fucked from here til next Tuesday.  It ain't rocket science.  Get the license.  Leave the drugs at home.  Replace your tailights.  Show up when you have a warrant.  In other words, fly under the fucking radar and life is pretty damn easy.  

BetterRalph's picture

Before you serve Jury Duty, become fully informed juror -

ConanTheContrarian1's picture

By this "logic", a 7-year-old should be able to drive a car down to the store for her mother.

Dr_Snooz's picture

This is a pretty piss poor example. You have the "right" to wear t-shirts emblazoned with racist slogans, and you have the "right" to complain when you get your ass beat. But you can't expect anyone to feel bad for you. You court a beat down, you get one. It's cause and effect; stimulus reaction. 

JB Say's picture

People should have to get a license initially to demonstrate they understand the rules of the road. It should never expire.

attila404's picture

The Constitution. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks for the laugh.

Flankspeed60's picture

'Law' and 'Justice' are only distant cousins, rarely even recognizing the other when passing on the street.

cannonfodder's picture

Exactly.  This is essentially what I told a lawyer many years ago, "There is law, and there is justice.  The two are not the same."

OutWithLibs's picture

Let's go bigger picture here....
When is the last time you saw a warrant issued for reckless conduct of a politician? Say, overwhelming evidence of murder for hire, blackmail, engaging in child pornography, wreckless protection of classified government documents, stealing the "rights" of the people to choose their nominee, yadda, yadda, yadda....
Point is there are rights, there are laws, and there are "enforcements" when it's convenient and beneficial to big brother. Having a license to drive a vehicle, practice law, or charge for a manicure is often a false flag to the general public that you are the "expert" in that field, yet anyone can get a license for just about anything, compliments of the internet, if you just have the money and time to research. While I'm not saying Being licensed is a bad thing, the primary reason for one is it allows local, state, and federal government to control more of the population- as in this article - and know more about you...the way to total big brother domination.

BetterRalph's picture

After Dyncorp USA infiltrated JTTF, we got these parallel construction oath breakers, DynCorp USA Denver - CIA, JTTF, School Plays

MCDirtMigger's picture

If I am brown and speak Spanish, el policia have no jurisdiction over me, for I am a protected class.

Harry Lightning's picture

This article is nonsense on a zillion different levels. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and the right to bear arms is not an unlimited right.

Let me remind you that one of America's most horrible serial killers was caught because he parked his car in a place that prohibited parking, and a policeman doing his job ticketed the car. And then when the police tracked the car down to where the owner lived, the saw the butt handle of a semi automatic machine gun in his back seat. This lunatic was planning to go to a club filled with young women and blast as many of them away as he could before he ran out of bullets.

And that would have happened save for a miniscule traffic law that he violated, and a cop who did his job and ticketed the car for its violation.

Old Dirty Bastid's picture

What the fuck is a "semi-automatic machine gun"? And according to common law, traveling is a right, driving is for profit. By statutory law the two were twisted to elicit more control over us (driver's licenses, taxi medallions, CDL, etc.). Wrong funckin site to spout statist bullshit... 

Peter Royce Clayon da Turd's picture

May I ask WHO decided it was a privilege and not a right? Was there a license for driving a horse and carriage?
The rest of your comment has absolutely no validity, nor common sense to those who wish to live free and not under a totalitarian state. It would seem to you that because of 1 in 1,000,000, we all must suffer less rights? Where in the hell were you educated and were/are you being detained in your parents basement? All you seem to know is the state is ALWAYS on the moral high ground and we are sheep. Perhaps you are, but not me. My morals are directed from a higher power that Debbie Fuckin Wasserman-Shultz.
Grow up or we will see to it you lose your internet access,because remember, it's a privilege and....
PS - Your statements also indicate that you probably believe in "open borders for migrants", right? Just wondering.

Eyes Opened's picture

Thank you for your contribution "officer" Lightening....

The system continues because of ruminants like u...

I suppose u agree with civil asset forfieture too ??

indio007's picture

Where did you get the idea the driving is a privileged other than government propaganda?

You should read

The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950

Oklahoma City University Law Review, Vol. 30, p. 245, 2005


The legal basis for the claim of priviledge is hinged on the STATE's claim it is the OWNER of the roads. Naturally if you own property someone doesn't have the right to enter it without license. However the law is the STATE does NOT own the roads. This is easily provable if you go read the Highway section Corpus Juris.

The issue is people are cows and the never dispute the basis of the the STATE's claims.




Appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy by the way. You Son of Sam example is hyperbolic nonsense. If you think he's one of the worst serial killers you need to read moe.

DarthVaderMentor's picture

Follow the money. All these bureaucrats and law enforcement "professionals" want to be able to fund their cadillac pensions with your confiscated hard earned assets.

Lost in translation's picture

It stops when the copgang members become afraid they might never see their kid, again.

There's zero point in arming yourself against tyranny and abuse if you're not spiritually prepared to use lethal force, the consequences be damned.

Face the truth: once you're in handcuffs, your life is already over. You stand no chance in any court, anywhere. You will be put in a cage and live there as an animal, with other animals.

Therefore, reckon yourself dead already. It frees your mind and your spirit to think and act as a free man.

The abuse stops when those who would lay hands on you are terrified to attempt it.

You must understand that you have nothing left to lose.

Harry Lightning's picture

Necessary evil. People should follow lwaws or change them. When the ability to change them is taken away, by statute or practice, then you have the right to rebel. Not before.

Cops are not the problem with America...and my guess is when good people finally have had enough and go after the real problem with that country, the cops will stand aside because most of them agree with the side that is ready to rebel.

Lost in translation's picture

Spoken like a true government stooge.

Shove it up your ass, "officer."

messystateofaffairs's picture

How can you change the laws, there are trillions of them.

Sugarcandy Mountain's picture

There's zero point in arming yourself against tyranny and abuse if you're not spiritually prepared to use lethal force, the consequences be damned.


tangent's picture

The most common systemic injustice aside from taxes in the US is the rip-off scam known as tickets. It renders law enforcement a total joke. The ticket system punishes the poor while all but encouraging rich people to drive recklessly. If there is no damage done you have no right to charge someone money. Its wrong and it is stealing. Replace the 2/3rds of the prison population who are there for victimless crimes with the COPS who wrongfully charge people money for causing $0 in damages when they speed or roll through a stop sign.

I think the moral of the story is make sure your car looks like you have lots of money and is in perfect working order. A bad looking car is basically telling cops you are poor and you are guaranteed to get targeted by them as someone who can't afford to fight the scam known as tickets.


God Emperor's picture

He dindu nuffin !!!

Just stopping short and without tail lights working would have made the others behind him crash a bit.

But that's nuffin.. especially when you're high.

Is just brotherly love like antifa and BLM share at those counter rallies.


He should have hassled a bit and saved us those 18yrs of living expenses.

GoldenDonuts's picture

The person who wrote this is a libertarian.  Pretty much the exact opposite of an antifa thug. 

ayyy lmao's picture

Driving is a privledge. You pay for the license to exercise that privlidge. If you don't want to pay, ride a horse.

Eyes Opened's picture

And if enough people rode horses... what do u think would happen ??

"Those horseshoes look a little thin there boy"

"And yer horse-tags are expired"

"See ya in court.... or simply pay this here ticket"....

indio007's picture

Horses killed and injured more people than cars when they were contemporaneous to each other.

Why did they make autos a privilege and not horses under the guise of safety?


On another note did you know a license is permission to do some act that is either illegal,unlawful,a trespass or a tort.

Which of those does driving fall under?


It's trivially easy to prove that driving isn't a privilege.


Sugarcandy Mountain's picture

Fuck off you illiterate statist.

tangent's picture

Traveling cannot be a mere privilage because we actually need it to live in many cases. Most people's lives are a life of squalor if they are in a rural area and have no access to a vehicle. If someone has never caused any damage with a vehicle, they have a right to use roads they funded with their own tax money.

shinobi-7's picture

Good joke! I thought they'd finally find a corpse in the trunk... without a license of course!

Reaper's picture

The police/prosecutor/judge industrial complex, like the military industrial complex is insatiable. If the courts followed statute law, they would have to follow the ultimate statute, the Constitution. The US courts are merged courts of law and equity, allowing a judge to choose one or the other; thus follow any whim, venality or dogma. The OJ trial was a rare victory for the sheeple with justice for the complex.

There is neither the rule of law, nor justice through equity; only the corruption by power.

shimmy's picture

While I don't like the requirement of having to carry a driver's license around, I am all for there being the license. It's bad enough dealing with shitty drivers who somehow passed their driver's test that I don't need to deal with people who are so inept they couldn't even pass it.

As for this whole scenario, you know what the person could have done? Not been an idiot and either fixed the light or followed the laws. Nice to see the writer of this not giving the person any responsibility for fucking up. All the rules and regulations are bad but you know what else is bad? The dindu nuffin, not my fault mentality so many have which this writer seems to be part of. 

Eyes Opened's picture

Actually shimmy , the example given was a rather poor example of what the author was trying to say.

There have been many people ripped off by revenue-collecting cops who are 100% innocent. I mean u can't even carry cash anymore or you are a drugdealer or thief or money launderer... civil asset forfieture gets u every time... & because the local cops get to KEEP a percentage (cut) they have a great incentive to collect.

"Lets be careful out there" .... the citizens I mean...

indio007's picture

Was the broking light an injury IN FACT. Was there damage to some person?





Ol Man's picture

Lesson #1 - License law are about taxes and privilege, not competency.

Lesson #2 - Rights also you allow you to make a mistake.  If your mistake is large enough you can be sued in civil court to recover damages.  This is required in order for you to also be free.  If you wish to give up your right to make a mistake then you automatically relinquish your right to be free. 

The good news is that even though you may relinquish any and all of your rights, the rest of us are not required to do so.

PS. The rest of us are not likely to have an incident with you regardless of the conditons of your lighting.  I have to deal with these people on a daily basis and they have never caused me a problem because I am competent behind the wheel.  YMMV...

lordkoos's picture

Uh, license fees help pay for those "public roads".

Goldennutz's picture



Go drive through "the hood" and there is only one rule..




And the cops don't do a damn thing in fear a chimp-out might start.

Koba the Dread's picture

Oh, there are rules in the hood, pal! There are definitely rules in the hood. You just don't know what they are.

SPQR 70AD's picture

both of you copsuckers are wrong

the cork's picture

The tail light thing is just the excuse cops make up to pull you over.

That shit is abused all the time.

That's one reason people don't trust cops.

Antivenom's picture

Add the POS cops who break out a tail light...then proceed with harassment...

Arrow4Truth's picture

Their purpose it to provide a revenue stream for the State. Period. They are in no way there to protect you. See: Castle Rock v. Gonzalez

Rhal's picture

I'm going devils advocate on this one.

Drivers licenses can be required to drive only because driving is not a right. Driving keeps the status of a licensed privilege so that the license can be taken away from horrible drivers. This arrangement was caused in the early days of cars when horrible drivers caused lots of damage and injury, and were too poor to pay damages.

What would your life be like if a bad driver ran you over and broke your legs? What if he killed your child? You would wish he was limited to bicycle transportation. 

Having said that, if you want to screw up the licensing system just let government do it: twice the price for half the service. But that's another can of worms.

Battlefield USA's picture

Who told you driving is not a right?


Anyhow, let's try this again:


Hey dumb-ass. The drunk driver that killed my first wife had a... LICENSE!


MOST drunk drivers have a... LICENSE.


Almost every single person who gets pulled over for some dumb-ass AND NOT SO dumb-ass infraction... HAS A LICENSE!


WTF did a LICENSE... prevent?


There are more JACK-ASSES on the road with a LICENSE... than there are JACK-ASSES... without a LICENSE.


You have been tutored... dumb-ass.

Rhal's picture

Tutored? You just proved my point by given examples of people whos' licenses should be taken away. You can't do that if it's a right.

Of course having your license revoked won't stop some people from driving anyhow, but that is the very point of requiring a license.

Antivenom's picture

However a driver's license does not provide competent drivers. All the painful scenarios presented by you are remedied with drivers insurance, which is too a requirement to drive.

So the drivers license is just a method to begin the mandatory drivers insurance IF you happened to be tied to a registered car you plan to take out on the roads.