When you’re rich and powerful, it’s all their fault because they want you to grab them by the pussy.

I found a version of Star vs the Forces of Evil without lyrics. I spliced the first 10 and last 20 seconds to fit it within 30 seconds.

This was T-Mobile 5G internet, and they only had one modem available. I never bothered looking for my own 5G modem (assuming T-Mobile would even allow BYOD), because my son was already complaining about his ping. And even then, they would still only assign a single IPv6 instead of the full /64 prefix I get with my current provider.

I already have my own router, but they do NAT from the modem with no way to switch to bridge mode.

I’ve seen fiber for that price, but my house is like 3 miles away from the nearest fiber location (I have a co-worker that lives within that boundary).

I pay $140/mo for ~300 down / 100 up. I found another provider with similar bandwidth for $50/mo, but I self-host a couple things, and they wouldn’t assign me an IPv6 prefix or allow port forwarding. Also, my son complained because his games had 70 ms ping on the less expensive provider.

Edit: I’m in a big city, I think it’s even worse in rural areas.

Bleh, you’re right, they did provide the infraction, even though it was BS (it was cloudy, but it was not raining). I still think the excessive force gives him a pretty decent chance at winning.

I suppose I was making a more general argument that may or may not apply to this case. I am just uncomfortable telling people “just comply, or you’ll make things worse,” even if pragmatically that might be true.

That is true, but if the court decides it was unlawful, then the failure to identify charge will also be dropped.

Yeah, I saw that after I replied. That doesn’t change the fact that ID is only required if the stop itself is lawful. Officers can’t just pull anyone over because they “feel like it,” otherwise the traffic stop itself is unlawful.

Obviously he would have had a much better time if he complied, but that’s a pragmatic solution, not a legally required one. Unless the officers can show to a court what offense warranted the traffic stop in the first place, failure to identify is not by itself an offense.

Also, the video didn’t appear to be making a sovereign citizen argument, just asking why he was pulled over. Pulling someone over simply for driving while black is not a lawful stop. But like you said, there are 6 more minutes of video, so we have no idea the details of this specific case, but that doesn’t mean it’s lawful for every case.

I’m fully aware of that entire genre of videos from sovereign citizens. /r/amibeingdetained was one of my favorite subreddits before leaving reddit.

“During a lawful traffic stop”

Officers must have reasonable suspicion of a law being broken to require ID: https://legalclarity.org/can-a-cop-ask-for-your-id-for-no-reason/. The case you cited was because of an expired plate.

He was within his rights to ask what law he violated before complying. The cops mentioned he needed his headlights on for the conditions, but he was skeptical, so he asked for the statute or a supervisor. If he refused after that, fine; but the cops escalated way earlier and with more force than was reasonable.

Even then, he was still lying because he added the disclaimer “if she wasn’t my daughter.”