>

Cops get pissed at that though. I had a cop behind me when I was turning right at an intersection. My tabs were past due so he lights me up in the intersection while the light was still red. He gets out and I asked him if we should pull into the gas station directly to our right.  He was pissed and said "I make the decision on when and where to pull you over, not you, do you understand me?" I watched cars back up trying to go around us and people still trying to make right hand turns. I am surprised he didn't get hit or cause anyone to have an accident. All to give me a expired tabs ticket.
Young ruled last year that federal immunity laws shielded Crocker and Gutierrez from Nazario’s claims that they violated his constitutional protections against excessive force and unreasonable seizure, as well as Nazario’s right to free speech by threatening him with arrest if he complained about their behavior.

That sounds interesting for why there would be "federal immunity shield" preventing a claim for actions that seem to be exactly what the government isn't allowed to do.  I'd dig into that further, but I've had enough disappointment for one day.  I'm sure there is some technical basis for why that "makes sense", but it doesn't read positively in this summary. >

Makes zero sense. Rights are there specifically to keep the government from violating them, and the ruling is that "well these government agents have special immunity so of course they're allowed to violate your rights!" >

If they can be taken away, they're not rights. >

Everything can be taken away. There is no such thing as rights >

Such an absurd take, if there's no such thing as rights why do we put so much effort into protecting them? >

Its a pointless empty statement to sound deep. >

So why do we protect rights then?
Wait you were talking about them werent you. Look at all the other comments of people doubling down, it's hilarious. >

Apologies if my message was unclear, I was agreeing with you.
If a law can be broken, is there no such thing as Laws? >

I realized it as soon as posted it, i get triggered pretty easily so it's not you. That is a great question, it's like they still think we live in the wild where there is no right or wrong. >

Right and wrong is subjective. Your cultural and societal influences while growing up effect how you form the concepts of right and wrong. 
There is nothing that is objectively right or wrong.
It's a valuable lesson to learn in life, it's one big grey area. >


Nazario also said: “I’m honestly afraid to get out.”
“You should be,” Gutierrez responded.

Jury: Yeah that seems okay. >

It’s disgusting. I live nearby Windsor and there aren’t a lot of lights through it. It’s a pretty small town. I’m not surprised that he wanted to pull somewhere safer with lights. Should be everyone’s right. >

It is. In fact it's recommended by the State. >

They literally tell you to do this for the safety of the officer…