Just cuz they don’t have a new offense name yet for the fratzonic fake super loud exhaust replicator system, doesn’t mean people shouldn’t get in trouble for doing the same dumb stuff they would with a “real” loud exhaust system.
I get your point, but ACAB means that you don’t just take cops word for things, because they are bastards. They lie and cheat and kill with impunity. If the cop has dashcam or badge cam video of the loud “muffler,” then ticket away.
Sure doesn’t seem the cop has proof, especially when they go fishing for more offenses after the stop. The latter is common cop behavior when they can’t pin their initial issue on you. They try to retroactively justify their bullshit, to get you for something to prove you’re the “bad guy.”
Since the cop cant prove the noise violation, he finds several other “provable” violations like window tint or an air freshener or whatever. This adds weight to his initial, unprovable allegation, but that doesn’t actually make it true. Cops fervently hunting for penny ante “gotchas” after the fact makes the whole thing suspect.
That is an unfortunate point. Historically the cop could prove loud noicpse because you had to modify your exhaust system, but this is just a speaker that could be on or off, with no clear proof.
I still say that DA should be pursuing action against the manufacturer that such a feature exists
Just cuz they don’t have a new offense name yet for the fratzonic fake super loud exhaust replicator system, doesn’t mean people shouldn’t get in trouble for doing the same dumb stuff they would with a “real” loud exhaust system.
I get your point, but ACAB means that you don’t just take cops word for things, because they are bastards. They lie and cheat and kill with impunity. If the cop has dashcam or badge cam video of the loud “muffler,” then ticket away.
Sure doesn’t seem the cop has proof, especially when they go fishing for more offenses after the stop. The latter is common cop behavior when they can’t pin their initial issue on you. They try to retroactively justify their bullshit, to get you for something to prove you’re the “bad guy.”
Since the cop cant prove the noise violation, he finds several other “provable” violations like window tint or an air freshener or whatever. This adds weight to his initial, unprovable allegation, but that doesn’t actually make it true. Cops fervently hunting for penny ante “gotchas” after the fact makes the whole thing suspect.
That is an unfortunate point. Historically the cop could prove loud noicpse because you had to modify your exhaust system, but this is just a speaker that could be on or off, with no clear proof.
I still say that DA should be pursuing action against the manufacturer that such a feature exists