Originally Posted by Big Mack

So the "mayor" was there? Or did the mayor simply rely on what his kid told him, and then proceeded to act incorrectly? He's an idiot, plain and simple. The cop did his job, and because the "mayor" didn't like that his kid was the one given a ticket (for doing two things wrong), he did something worse. Like I said, we should see his termination for being a complete jackass.



I don't think they were whining, simply commenting on how it seems to be a recurring theme. Douche gets power, douche abuses power. And the vicious cycle continues.

And my pepe cures cancer. Prove to me that it doesn't!! LOL.



Big Mack

Originally Posted by FisforFast

You need a valid driver's license to operate a motor vehicle, which you need to go on most public roads. So what's your point?

Originally Posted by JonSC4

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

Originally Posted by JonSC4

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

Originally Posted by LB Lex

People have the right to travel (and drive) state to state. However states may regulate drivers in their state as long as the regulation is not discriminatory against non-state residents, unduly burdensome and since it is a fundamental right any limitation must promote a compelling state interest. For example, states can place a minimum age to drive (the Constitution does not list an age) and this can be done because it passes Constitutional scrutiny. Also those who are physically or mentally impaired cannot obtain a drivers license because it is unsafe for the state to do so. Moreover, states can set up toll roads/bridges requiring you to pay to use the road/bridge thereby restricting your ability to travel on it. So yes, traveling /driving is a right but it can be limited and in some cases revoked (with Due Process).

Back on topic, that mayor is a tool for suspending the officer for equally applying the law regardless of the person's status.

Originally Posted by Jakex1

not to be cynical but its basically a case of 2 power abusers. and the one whos used to having more power is butthurt he is suspended

Originally Posted by mmarshall

You opinon noted and respected, but I fail to see how simply asking one to show a valid drivers' license and registration is an abuse of power. That is simply upholding state law.

Now, if the cop acted in an unacceptable manner by raising his voice, using insulting terms, ordering him out of the car for no reason, spread-eagle, or doing a pat-down or strip search, like you sometimes see on TV shows, that would be quite another matter. Then the cop would (maybe) deserve a reprimand or disciplinary action.

Originally Posted by FisforFast

Yeah, I am always appaled when I watch Cops how easily a regular traffic stop always turns into a full-fledged search of the car and the arrest of the occupants. Something like that would probably never happen in Canada because a cop can't search your car unless you give them your permission, or unless they have a warrant.

Originally Posted by I8ABMR

I don't know what the mayor was thinking. The cop is right on this one

Originally Posted by mmarshall

You opinon noted and respected, but I fail to see how simply asking one to show a valid drivers' license and registration is an abuse of power. That is simply upholding state law.

Now, if the cop acted in an unacceptable manner by raising his voice, using insulting terms, ordering him out of the car for no reason, spread-eagle, or doing a pat-down or strip search, like you sometimes see on TV shows, that would be quite another matter. Then the cop would (maybe) deserve a reprimand or disciplinary action.