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

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.


Got The Wrong No Mon, 08/21/2017 - 14:16 Permalink

If you are going to drive without a licence, have drugs and a gun in the car, don't be an even bigger dumb ass and drive a vehicle that gets you pulled over. I guess it's the new norm to blame others for your own stupidity. Putting your hand in the fire and not expecting to get burned is moronic. 

rex-lacrymarum My crotch itches Tue, 08/22/2017 - 02:06 Permalink

Those of us who give birth to large monuments in the end use up more water with the restricted flow toilets than they would have otherwise. It's the same with emasculated vacuum cleaners and dish washers - it just means everything takes two or three times as long, because everything must be done two or three times over instead of once. It is pure harrassment in other words, and increases water and energy use instead of lowering it. 

In reply to by My crotch itches

Bemused Observer rex-lacrymarum Tue, 08/22/2017 - 12:07 Permalink

You know, in thinking about it, I wonder if the amount of water is actually the main problem. Thinking back to those Disney toilets, it seemed to me that what was really different was the SPEED and FORCE with which the contents were sucked down. I'm not sure that this has to do with the amount of water, as the gravitational forces would be the same. There seems to be something else at work here...Are there actually any 'toilet experts' here who can clear this up? My current, eco-friendly home toilet seems to be mainly get the swirl, then the gentle suck-through as the water moves down. But in Disney, there was more to it than that, it was like those toilets were powered, and were ACTIVELY pulling down that water instead of just gravity. That this 'suck-down' was actually strong enough to create an air current that pulled the door shut tells me there HAS to be more to those toilets than mere gravity, or an extra gallon of water. I can't imagine my own toilet working any better with more water...just taking longer for it all to go down. So what's up with that? Less water wouldn't be so much of an issue if you had more power with the water you DO use. Think of a hose with a low flow of water coming out, just sorta ooozing. Now imagine yourself putting your finger over the opening to restrict that you have a thinner stream with much greater FORCE, using the same amount of water. If the lo-flo toilets incorporated something like that into the design, they might not be such a pain in the ass. (no pun intended)

In reply to by rex-lacrymarum

Mirv PT Tue, 08/22/2017 - 07:36 Permalink

To those complaining about govt regulation water restrictions.  My toilet has "small" and "large" flush options for different sized jobs and eliminates that problem.  But I live in Asia.  We have very simple technology to address simple problems.

In reply to by PT

PT Creepy_Azz_Crackaah (not verified) Tue, 08/22/2017 - 00:17 Permalink

I removed my shower head, got a little tiny drill bit and drilled extra holes into it.  It works great now.  Before then I had to run around underneath the shower in order to try and get wet.  Or turn the shower on so hard it gave me acupuncture.And yes, I have visited a gummint institution that had all the greatest "water saving" tech including their tiny little toilets that ensure you need to flush at least three times.  I'm wondering how many years it will take them to figure out the error in their ways.  Could be a long time.  Given they are govt types, they've probably "got the time" to wait and flush three times.  If not, then I feel sorry for the cleaner.  Hope he/she gets paid well.

In reply to by Creepy_Azz_Crackaah (not verified)

BarkingCat PT Tue, 08/22/2017 - 09:44 Permalink

I don't know why you people are having such a hard time with the toilets.I put in a new American Standard Cadet few years ago when I remodeled my bathroom and it is great.Things I have dumped down that toilet would have chocked that old 8 gallon monster that it replaced. ...and I loved that old monster because it would handle pretty much anything and was going to keep it but the base had cracks in it. So, don't buy a cheap toilet. My American Standard was about $200 and worth every penny. I am pretty sure that it can handle the shit coming out of an American Standard 500 pound fat ass.  

In reply to by PT

Bemused Observer BarkingCat Tue, 08/22/2017 - 11:44 Permalink

The best toilets I've ever used were in Disney World's Polynesian resort, about 15-20 years ago. At that time, it was getting very difficult to find any kind of normal toilet...most you ended up having to flush more than once, which defied the whole reason to have them in the first place.But those toilets in the Polynesian were awesome! My kids found it amazing that, when you flushed it, it actually created air currents that sucked the bathroom door closed. When you stood there you could FEEL the breezes. And no gentle 'swirl' with a tiny burp at the end, these things ROARED, and the contents were forcefully sucked down in a split second, here one second, gone the next. You could have probably flushed your empty beer cans down there, no problem. I wonder if they still have them, or if they went 'green' and got the lo-flows...

In reply to by BarkingCat

gmrpeabody Uchtdorf Mon, 08/21/2017 - 20:43 Permalink

Probably waiting in the 7-11 parking lot for his drugs..., and maybe, just maybe better off because of it. But then guys like you probably prefer there to be no laws, no cops, and no gut instincts on behalf of those low down pigs. which would make life easier for guys like you. Of course, this is all just a gut feeling on my part.

In reply to by Uchtdorf

Utopia Planitia gmrpeabody Mon, 08/21/2017 - 22:12 Permalink

So I guess you've never been on a long drive away from home and had any exterior light on your car burn out? Do you have "magic lightbulbs" that never burn out on your car? I do a lot of driving far from home and find most of the burnt-out bulbs when far away from my home shop and tools. Generally you have no idea that a light has burned out unless you get somebody to do all the testing with you.  It takes two to do that - one to operate the controls in the car and a second person to go watch the lights.  Not something that can be done casually.Such an instance should warrant, at worst, a notification by Law Enforcement that a light has burned out.  If they want to make a note that a given vehicle has a burnt out light and that you have been notified, with X days to get it fixed, then so be it.  There is no legitimate reason for that to be judged a heinous violation of American soveriegnty.  If you are driving at night with no headlights that might be legitimate reason for action. Other than that the answer is NO.I also can't tell you how many law enforcement vehicles I have seen with various lights burnt out (or at least no-op).There is no attempt here to subvert "the law".  The question is, how much power and control does "the law" have over you?  It sounds like you are willing to give up all your freedom.  What do you think you are getting in return???

In reply to by gmrpeabody

PT Utopia Planitia Tue, 08/22/2017 - 00:25 Permalink

Broken tail light --> side-swipe at night.  "Sorry sir, I didn't see you, I thought it was a motorbike." - Depending on how dark the streets are and the eyesight of the other driver.  Or at high speed both drivers will get wiped out.Who checks their tail lights every five minutes?  Who checks their tail lights ever?  So a good cop will pull you over just to let you know - be careful, try not to drive at night until it is fixed etc.  A cop in a bad mood will fine you just because he can.While the article raises valid points, this guy did himself no favours.

In reply to by Utopia Planitia

DoctorFix Got The Wrong No Tue, 08/22/2017 - 02:40 Permalink

I got pulled over for a burnt out taillight.  was it out when I left the house?  No.  But somewhere down the road it gave up the ghost... so, unbeknownst to me, I'm suddenly not "legal"?  Oh, and to put the cherry on top I wasn't about to believe the verbal vomitus any buzz-cut bastard is going to tell me unless I can see some proof... So, lo, I got out of the car and head to the back to make sure I wasn't being lied to.  As you can imagine many sturmtruppen get antsy at a mundane seeking proof of their diktats but in this case their better judgement and the fact that I had a van full of kids may have tempered any lunacy prevalent within their noggins.

In reply to by Got The Wrong No

Erek Mon, 08/21/2017 - 14:17 Permalink

"The government requires licenses to exercise rights. You have to pay in order to be free."It's true! Freedom isn't free after all.

HRH Feant2 (not verified) jughead Mon, 08/21/2017 - 17:58 Permalink

Sure. Until a busybody snitches or photographs you or gets you doing whatever you are doing illegally on video!

Where I live we need a fucking permit, pass, or to pay a fee to do anything from parking at a state park to fishing to cutting down a trash tree.

Am I sick of it? Yes.

In reply to by jughead

PT HRH Feant2 (not verified) Tue, 08/22/2017 - 00:34 Permalink

Goldman Sachs just lobbies the govt to change the laws to whatever they want and it happens.  You should too.errr, correction:  Goldman Sachs puts its people in govt to change the laws to whatever its lobbyists want.  You should too.Big Pharma lobbies the govt ...In Australia a whole lot of small parties suddenly sprung up a few years ago - the Shooters Party, the Fishers Party, the Motorists Party - they're trying to reclaim what we have lost.  I do wonder if there is some other agenda going on behind the scenes - I never trust good news at face value as I got disappointed too many times when I was a small child - but other than that, some are trying instead of only complaining.

In reply to by HRH Feant2 (not verified)