I didn’t watch the whole video, but I did think back when I was one of five children under six, and seatbelts were not standard and minivans weren’t in widespread use. There were usually four kids in the back, and one kid (usually me) between the parents, sometimes is a car seat that hung over the seat backs, not anchored.
Forty-two in a 30 zone in light traffic is not crazy driving. A Chrysler 300 is not a small car these days. I don’t see why these people, shirtless and tattooed as they are, need to be given the third degree about drugs, guns and alcohol. I certainly never have been when pulled over for exceeding the posted speed limit. I don’t see four kids where there’s room for three pertinent to the equation.
I also don’t like regs that make it exceedingly difficult to have a larger family. I don’t like their swearing at the cop. But I admit I would have been thinking some of their questions even if I didn’t ask them.
As it turns out, they are low-lifes (I skipped ahead and found out about the armed robberies). I just can’t associate four kids in the back of a car a great marker for low-lifes.
It was 43 in a 30, 13 miles over the limit. Cops usually ignore 5 but never 13.
I don’t see why these people, shirtless and tattooed as they are, need to be given the third degree about drugs, guns and alcohol.
Because the officer called it in, was informed who they were and encountered immediate belligerence. Attitude gets you attention.
“...I also don’t like regs that make it exceedingly difficult to have a larger family...”
You’re right. Regulations and sometimes tax structure are often geared to having big families even more difficult that it always is anyway.
I agree with your assessment on the extraneous questions. The purpose of which was to delay them while the computer runs their paperwork and ID, looking for warrants and bolos that match. I wouldn’t trust the speedgun numbers either.
They became argumentative only in response to the repeated questions because they knew it was a tactic and where it was headed.
Seatbelt laws require that they all be in use, not that there be enough for all occupants. Otherwise, it’s poverty discrimination essentially disallowing larger families the ability to travel.