Citizen pulls over cop for unlawful behavior, issues warning

[limequat]

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/10/20/citizen-pulls-over-unmarked-wa-police-car-video/
Dog bites man, that's not news. Man bites dog, now that's news. Or so goes the old newspaper adage, and we see it manifested all the time. Take this latest video clip for example. While it wouldn't usually be news to see a cop pulling over a motorist, seeing a motorist pulling over a cop and asking to see ID is another matter entirely.

The video comes courtesy of one Gavin Seim, a self-styled liberty activist and former congressional candidate from Washington State's 4th district. In this instance, Seim is advocating (and civically enforcing) a law on the books in Washington that precludes law enforcement officers from patrolling in unmarked vehicles, a measure designed so that motorists know they're being lawfully pulled over by police and not by an impersonator.

Seim sees a sheriff's deputy patrolling in an unmarked, plain-white Dodge Charger, so he flags him down and – in as clear a reversal of roles as we've ever seen – proceeds to ask the deputy for ID while alerting him to the state law which he's apparently violating. Fortunately, both parties act respectfully, as you can see from the video which Seim captured and posted online in both edited and full versions.

 

[limequat]

We could all learn something from this guy.

Holding cops accountable while not being combative. Wow.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

I ripped my laughing muscles when he said "Is it such a big deal to show some ID" I was like... damn that is 100% exactly what they would say.

 

[jmdrake]

All I can say is....wow! And we need laws like this everywhere.

 

[osan]

That was so cool.

 

[Bryan]

Just saw this is a major top story feature on the front page of Yahoo news. lol.

Over a 1,000,000 views too.

 

[Shane Harris]

Just saw this is a major top story feature on the front page of Yahoo news. lol.

Over a 1,000,000 views too.

Thats amazing! Just tweeted it. So nice when videos with this message go viral.

 

[EBounding]

So did the officer stop patrolling with the unmarked vehicle?

 

[Spikender]

So did the officer stop patrolling with the unmarked vehicle?

LOLno.

 

[limequat]

LOLno.

Well he better be careful. I'll bet next time he'll get more than a warning.

 

[Spikender]

Well he better be careful. I'll bet next time he'll get more than a warning.

"The cop reached for my sidearm I swear."

If only I heard that one more often.

 

[jbauer]

very interesting conversation happening in the yahoo comments.

RCW 46.08.065 Publicly owned vehicles to be marked — Exceptions. " This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, or any vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes."

Read that sentence specifically the word "or". I think that sentence says the cops and sheriffs are exempt from the "must be marked" laws that this guy "pulls" a cop over for.

 

[limequat]

very interesting conversation happening in the yahoo comments.

RCW 46.08.065 Publicly owned vehicles to be marked — Exceptions. " This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, or any vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes."

Read that sentence specifically the word "or". I think that sentence says the cops and sheriffs are exempt from the "must be marked" laws that this guy "pulls" a cop over for.

So by definition, if the cop is using it for traffic enforcement, it is neither undercover nor confidential investigative purposes.

 

[jbauer]

Right but if thats what it meant the the law would read:

RCW 46.08.065 Publicly owned vehicles to be marked — Exceptions. " This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, AND any vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes.

Instead it says: RCW 46.08.065 Publicly owned vehicles to be marked — Exceptions. " This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, OR any vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes.

When you start listing exceptions. It says sheriffs, cops..................................OR (which separates off the cops/sheriff) peace officicers who are undercover. That should mean that cops and sherrifs are exempt. Plus if you're a peace officer in a special investigation...such as an FBI agent or something similar that you're also exempt.

This guys entire 1M hits are a misinterpretation of the statue.

 

[jbauer]

So by definition, if the cop is using it for traffic enforcement, it is neither undercover nor confidential investigative purposes.

Disagree. It says peace officers who are undercover are exempt.

 

[BrooklynZoo]

Try reading Gavin's blog where he explains the law:
http://callmegav.com/2014/10/citizen-pulls-over-unmarked-police-gives-warning/

Don't give cops an inch!

 

[BrooklynZoo]

MYTH: The spin machine asserts that since the word “OR” is in the sentence it must therefore separate the structure. They assert that exempt vehicles include “sheriff AND “local police” AND “local peace officers” undercover. While it can be a tad confusing when you think about it, it does not take an expert linguist to debunk this lie and it would never stand in court. The wording is actually clear.

FACT: “undercover or confidential investigative” requirement applies to all the vehicles in that sentence. Why? If that sentence did in fact cover two separate categories of vehicles, they would be noted with an (a) and a (b). This is how RCW’s are written and it’s done in the very next sentence which reads: “This subsection shall not apply to: (a) Any municipal transit vehicle operated for purposes of providing public mass transportation; (b) any vehicle governed by the requirements of subsection (4).” When clear separation is worded in, it’s made very clear...

This is much like debating the 2nd Amendment about comma placement. This is a law written in 1937 and the way in which many laws were phrased is different than more contemporary laws.

 

[jbauer]

This is much like debating the 2nd Amendment about comma placement. This is a law written in 1937 and the way in which many laws were phrased is different than more contemporary laws.

Could very well be. I'm just reading it just like any other citizen might and came to a different conclution. I guess the "true" definition should be left to a jury of our peers.

 

[osan]

This is much like debating the 2nd Amendment about comma placement. This is a law written in 1937 and the way in which many laws were phrased is different than more contemporary laws.

This brings me back to one of the most difficult graduate courses in computer science I ever took: The Algebraic Specification Of Software. The text was from Springer-Verlag, infamous for it highly abstruse publications. One of the things into which the instruction touched, albeit briefly, was the notion that algebraic specification could be applied to the formulation of law such that no possible alternative interpretations were possible. While he failed to full grasp the fact that his assertion turned upon the assumption that the definition of words were held constant and perfectly clear and complete. That is a big assumption that generally fails to hold, as we all know from our daily experience. But, if the definitions could he corralled sufficiently, such algebraic specification would indeed achieve the goal of providing the means of constructing law that was clear, complete, correct, and sufficient to their intended function.

The concept of defining laws in terms of constructed algebras is not without merit or intrigue. Whether its use would change anything... I am doubtful because I can tell you from first hand experience that you need to be a first-class mathematician to be able to parse the semantics properly. In those days I was at the top of my game as a mathematician and was middling in terms of my talents. I had certain difficulties, shall we say, with construction. Less with interpretation, I admit, but still some algebras were a serious challenge. Now, imagine setting your typical nitwit judge to such tasks. I don't think it would work out very well. You would have to place top-drawer double majors in law and mathematics at the appellate level (at the very least) in order to best ensure that justice did not run amok even worse than it does now.

Unfortunately, as I think about this further, I realize that even this method is open to corruption. With zero credibility, any judge could simply say "Law X says this" and an army of well trained mathematicians could go on all day about how he was full of shit and what would it matter? Theye always prevail in the fundamentals and that is where we are so screwed to the barn door.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

This deserves to be made sticky.