Did you catch the story about the woman who was stopped by a cop for the “offense” of using a “handheld device” – a cell phone – “while driving” – nevermind that she has no hand? She waved her stump at the cop (who was driving a disguised cop car, a Mustang GT) in the vain hope that he’d recognize she could not have committed the “offense” he says he believed he saw her commit. He handed her the the extortion note – what we’ve been taught to refer to blandly as a “ticket” – anyhow.
The “ticket ” was eventually dismissed – probably because there was video evidence of the evil absurdity of handing a woman without a hand a “ticket” for handling a cell phone. But it would still be an offense, regardless – because of the harm caused to the victim who’d done no harm to anyone by handling a cell phone.
Notice how everything is turn’d upside down? We are victimized for committing “offenses” that have harmed no one. Put another way, causing harm is the law.
The law – in many states – says it’s illegal to handle a cell phone while driving. So? Does that mean it is wrong? Or is it another one of those arbitrary rules we’re required to follow? Obviously, it is the latter. Because it is self-evident that no harm is done to anyone by the mere act of handling a cell phone. The laws prohibiting this are based on the assertion that harm might come from being distracted by the phone but harm might also come from pecking at the LCD touchscreen within every new and recent model year vehicle and that is not considered an “offense.” It is apparently not potentially distracting, in other words, to peck at a screen if the screen is part of the car.
Franz Kafka would have had fun with this.
It is true, of course, that a person can be distracted by a cell phone. Just as it is true a person can be distracted by the cell phone built into the car. Just as it is true a person can be distracted by a squirrel or a daydream or any of a multitude of other potential distractions. Why does it matter? The potential distraction, that is? Shouldn’t the actual matter more? More precisely, why does “distraction” – a hugely subjective thing – matter at all when the only substantive/objective thing that ought to matter is whether any harm has resulted on account of the distraction?
That certainly seems reasonable. The obverse being that is seems unreasonable to say that an “offense” has been committed when no harm has been caused. That latter business is based on the idea – not openly stated, for obvious reasons – that it is an “offense” to affront the arbitrary authority of the state. That is why it is unnecessary for the state to establish harm has been caused in order to extract money and impose other punishments when its authority has been affronted. The law is the law, as the saying goes. It is arguably among the most arbitrary and evil sayings – to a great extent on account of its banality and nihilism. Most people just shrug and accept it as part of the normal order of things when it is extremely abnormal for millions of people who’ve caused no harm to live under perpetual duress because there are so many laws it is impossible to not transgress some of them every day and so to have to live every day knowing this might be the day they are selected to get a “ticket” for having committed an “offense.”
It demoralizes us and it fosters something worse. It breeds and nurtures a class of enforcers who have no moral discernment. More precisely, it corrodes whatever discernment they may have had. They become officials, a power caste that enjoys both special privileges as well as the high that comes from being enforcers of the state’s arbitrary authority. Such power is a heady narcotic. Try to imagine the feeling of power that attends dressing up in a scary-looking outfit festooned with lethal weapons and knowing you have the power to use them and their presence alone constitutes a heady threat that causes those you interact with to be deferential and even servile.
You get to “pull over” and harass people whom you know haven’t caused any harm. What does that do to the person who does it as a matter of routine?
You maybe tell yourself that the person you pulled over might have caused harm but you know it’s just pretextual – an excuse to enforce a law. A law that you yourself very probably ignore, because of course you can. Enforcers do not, except very rarely and only in extreme circumstances, “pull over” fellow enforcers for the “offenses” they routinely “pull over” the Mere Ordinaries for having committed. It is hardly necessary to state this truism because everyone knows it to be true.
In time, the enforcer becomes an automaton. A law-quoting, morally derelict thing skulking around in a $40,000 high-performance sports car who feels neither guilt nor shame handing a “ticket” for an “offense” to a one-handed woman who couldn’t even have been handling a cell phone.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2026/05/30/first-offense/&media=https://www.ericpetersautos.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/cops-7.jpg&description=Did you catch the story about the woman who was stopped by a cop for the "offense" of using a "handheld device (a cell phone) while driving"?){kind=link}
In the South Carolina US Senate race, Israeli-owned warmonger Lady Lindsay Graham’s Republican primary opponent is Mark Lynch, a local businessman. For several weeks Graham’s supporters have been mailing out copious glossy flyers attacking Mark Lynch. Their latest indictment of Lynch? … In the past he was charged with being a “habitual traffic offender”. Doesn’t say whether he was convicted of such heinousness; I guess voters are supposed to infer that the fact that he was charged per se renders him unfit to “serve” in the US Senate.
Caribbean cops, part deux..(settle out of court)
Sitrep: North Colombian coast (July 2019)…
On a run from Cartagena to a town called Palamino along hwy 90….My Caracas Honey does a ummmm..”Questionable Venezuelan traffic maneuver” in Barranquilla, to avoid a serious traffic tie-up.
Unfortunately , we get pulled over by a couple of cops up ahead….
Yadda yadda ,spic gibberish back and forth…..
Then a 50,000 peso note…..gets surreptitiously handed to the AGW (Approx 20 US)….
And we are on our merry way!!
No harm , no foul…….AND KIDS,
No reporting to the insurance mafia et al..Yeah baby!
I love it. 🙂
As Eric correctly states, the ‘law’ applies selectively and can always be ‘flexible’.
An acquaintance of mine told me recently how, when arriving in LA after a few months’ of being overseas, he was ordered by Customs to unlock his phone and submit it for ‘inspection’.
I had to look up what legal justification there may be for such a request without any warrant, given the Fourth Amendment.
And then I found out that apparently there is ‘an exception’ the CBP agents have from the Fourth, with no warrant or ‘suspicion of wrongdoing’ needed!
“The standard Fourth Amendment requirement for probable cause and a judicial warrant is attenuated at the border; agents can conduct routine searches of any traveler regardless of citizenship.”
Who knew the Constitution was optional and ‘exemptions’ from it could be granted whenever the government feels like it?
This almost feels like the old ‘People’s Democratic Republics’ of the Eastern block days…
Blah , Blah ,Blah….
Geebus, “Special ED types”…..How many times have I expounded upon the virtues of
“The Caribbean AGW”???
e.g….
Dominican Republic…”Oye Yanqui Dog” ….Are you going to pass OR what?
FYI…ALL DR AGWS are “clovers”…and just want you to leave them alone And pass…
Get the hell out of their face…
Plus they actually “Protect and Serve”…
e.g. zipping up along the riparian border between DR & Haiti (Dajabon, DR)
believe it or not … it’s called the Masacre River ..we stop at a “Cesfront” “Border Patrol” unit….roadblock
We pass thru ez peasy…The vehicle contains no …”eggplant “…
The AGW notices my beer is almost empty…..AND RECOMMENDS I VISIT HIS COUSIN’S COLMADO …HE HAS THE COLDEST BEER IN TOWN!!
TELL THAT TO THE MARINES…I’m listening….
oh yeah ….forgot to time stamp the event…sometime during 2021…
End Transmission..
Following the implementation of the 55 mph speed limit, police officers became enforcers and auromotons, increasingly militarized and antagonistic towards average people.
I didn’t really start to see that until around 1986-1987. About that time they suddenly became drastically more belligerent and confrontational during routine interactions.
In June 1987 , in a Hardee’s restaurant, I saw a state trooper draw his .357 and point it down at the table between him and a private citizen, and at the citizen’s knee/thigh under the table. He seemed to think this was very comical.
As I recall that trooper had a tattoo on his wrist or forearm. It was a tattoo of “Zig-Zag Man,” the logo or mascot of the Zig-Zag brand of rolling papers. I think it was relic of his undercover days.entrapping potheads.
That’s true, and most of it happened after the 55 NMSL was repealed. Anyhow these BS stops and tickets have been going on forever.
They make stuff up for a beyond the stop or just because they are bored.
That’s because prior to the NMSL speed limits were, generally, prima facia and not absolute. The concept of the 85th Percentile rule still reigned.
I am willing to bet that the cop was on steroids.
Ever wonder why many cops are so stupid? The steroids they take inhibit rational thinking as well as making one more aggressive, to the point of irrational thinking and stupidity.
Of course the “laws” are set up to absolve them of responsibility for their actions. Police departments do not test for steroids.
Observe SWAT teams who are all tatted up and on steroids who cannot read the address on a warrant properly and end up hitting the wrong house, often with disastrous results. This happens more often than most people think. They claim that “dynamic entry” tactics, smashing and destroying everything in sight is from an “adrenaline rush” and not steroid use (yeah right).
“Qualified immunity” and other “carve-outs” are but two of many “laws” that absolve cops of actions resulting from their inherent stupidity and steroid use. Cops getting away with murder is one result of “qualified immunity”…not good.
Thanks for pointing out the issue of steroids among cops. Too many have the tell tale signs of the exaggerated biceps, puff out “barrel” chest and swollen head atop no neck, with said swollen head either shaved or topped with a military style buzz cut that just screams GOON. Besides instituting mandatory steroid testing for cops (male and female) I would ban any military style buzz cuts on men. If you are mostly bald already you can shave you head otherwise your hair needs to touch your ears so as too look something like a regular person.
I agree, MQ –
Of course, the fundamental problem is all these “offenses” … if policing were restricted to dealing with criminals, most people wouldn’t fear and loathe the police, because the police wouldn’t be threatening. Prison guards don’t bother me – because they literally can’t. That’s how it ought to be generally, for people who aren’t criminals.
They should also operate more like fire departments. They’d be on “stand-by” and only respond when called. They wouldn’t be out “looking for trouble”.
As Mom said in my early teens, “If you go looking for trouble, you’ll find it…or it’ll find you.”
“It didn’t matter that Tate had refused to break the law. ATF decided that Tate was a criminal; ATF just had to _make _him one. ”
“The ATF needs numbers to justify its existence…”
https://www.gunowners.org/na052706/
Same MO with Weaver/Ruby Ridge. The deputy/Feral informant tried repeatedly to get him to cut off a shotgun below (just a little below) the “legal” limit. My first question would be,”dont YOU own a hacksaw and a file?”
‘Why the great confusion in the law of gun rights?
From 1791 until 2008, the Supreme Court did not strike down one federal, state, or local gun regulation. In the handful of cases about ‘the Second Amendment, the court said that it means what it says: it is a right to have guns for militia service.’
That is, only a well-balanced breakfast has the right to keep and eat food. That is how they would read the following.
“A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to the beginning of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed.”
You have to go to law school — where they evidently don’t diagram sentences — and study real hard to know that.
“Dumb jurors and corrupt judges” indeed. If you even get a jury trial at all anymore, you’re being tried by twelve people too dumb to get out of jury duty. And judges by definition are part and parcel of the the corrupt power system.
Judges draw a paycheck and are not beholden to the people, they are inherently corrupt. Juries don’t know their powers and are specifically chosen by lawyers to be that way.
The fact that this AGW still wrote her a “ticket” despite the clear fact that she had no right hand proves he is a sub-human with zero empathy.
He certainly has zero empathy, and zero common sense. Hope the rest of his life is filled with merciless mockery.
Here in Texas, the “no touch” laws were a reaction to Waze’s impact on the ability of local autnorities to mulct travelers effectively. The statewide law is “no texting”, but the Legislature failed to enact a standard for individual counties and cities.
Austin’s “no touch” law was passed in the wake of Ed Bolian setting the Cannonball record in 2013.
When the law first went into effect in the city, the $500 (!) file and three points on the driving record provided an incentive for Austin PD to set up what I call “Waze Traps” on overpass bridges over I-35 approaching town, featuring heroes with binoculars looking into the passing cars and dispatching motorcycles to intercept the scofflaws.
Well to the shit hole called USSA I hate this place today
I was wondering if you were going to cover this, Eric, as I read this not too long ago, as well. What gets me is that even after the woman showed proof that there was no way in hell she was texting with her “right arm”, the LEO doubled down as if to tell her that he is NEVER wrong, and even when clearly shown he is. Sadly, you are all-too correct when it comes to a state trooper/police following behind you. Even when you know good and well you are doing nothing wrong, we are all guilty until we “prove” our innocence. And even when said innocence is clearly demonstrated, in the end, it does not matter, especially when you have dumb jurors and corrupt judges willing to feed this system of corruption for our “ssssssaaaaafety”. When SHTF, I dare say no one is going to bother these said LEO’s. They think they can just keep this crap up indefinitely. But one day, they may need some plebs help, and no one will care. There is a channel on YouTube specifically talking about what to do if pulled over, or if the “authorities” come a knocking at your door. No one is truly free when such YouTube streams become a necessity, and when articles like your resonate with so many.
..make that “bother to help said LEO’s”. Where’s an “Edit” button when I need it?
One has to wonder what might have happened in the days before body cameras? I imagine there’s a desk sergeant reviewing body camera footage all day now, since it’s supposed to be an unbiased witness that the cop has no control over. Then ol’ sarge has a monthly or quarterly review session with the flatfoot, where he goes through all the “wrong” things the cop did when handling a situation. Instead of the cop laughing at himself and letting her go, the body camera recording how he f***ed up (and possibly ending up on an outtakes reel), he has to follow procedure and “let the courts figure it out.” Can’t show weakness in front of the Russians, right?
I’ve been “pulled over” twice by AGWs who thought I was talking on a cell phone, which device I did not own, at that time. The Chino cop was cool, but the Corona PD motorcycle officer did not believe me when I told him I did not own a cell phone.
He puffed himself up like a toad, and said, “Well, if you’re lying to me, you’ll have to answer to St. Peter”. I somehow managed to keep a straight face. The way I see it, if I do indeed have to “answer to St. Peter”, “talking on a cell phone while driving”(or “not owning a cell phone”) will be the least of my worries.
I was riding my motorbike on the highway a few years back. A cop in a marked car passed me going the other way. I watched him in my mirrors, saw him turn around and then come up behind me, and so I made sure I was doing the exact speed limit (obviously he had to speed to catch up to me). He pulled me over and gave me a ticket over my vehement protests. I fought it in court and lost.
Fuck the cops. Fuck the courts too.
“The law is the law, as the saying goes.”
-“The law is an ass,” as Charles Dickens wrote…
Reminded me of Aunt Bea giving Andy what’s for:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LrgPb4eo-5Y
This is what happens when you have Police Officers and not Peace Officers.
It’s the israelization of American “law enforcement”…
Let’s not forget that American police officers receive “training” that is borne and bred in israel (occupied Palestine) of all places.
“Escalation of force” doctrine has been replaced with israeli-style “command and control” doctrine in which immediate, unwavering compliance with an officer’s demands is not only expected but demanded under threat of loss of life.
Today’s American police departments are extensions of the IOF (israel occupation forces) in which orange man has not only resumed giving them military equipment but has also promised to extend greater immunity to these predators.
Observe the double standard regarding the operation of devices within police vehicles, from computers and cell-phones and other distractions, we are told that police are “specially trained” to operate these devices while driving (yeah, right). Window tints (which are illegal for the rest of us) along with subdued graphics (which hides their identity from the rest of us) are also examples of the double standard that exists within American policing.
Since the First Amendment is being obliterated upon demands from jewish interests, We are all Palestinians and Gazans, now…
Now consider the opposite case, where instead of shaking down victims, the state pays to bribe corporations. Four GOP gubernatorial candidates in South Carolina were asked about the billion-plus in subsidies given to the Scout Motors plant in
BlightwoodBlythewood, SC by incumbent governor Henry McMaster.All four piously denounced the Scout Motors ‘boondoggle’ to cheers from the audience.
https://www.wistv.com/video/2026/05/26/watch-what-sc-republican-candidates-governor-said-about-scout-motors/
Sadly, this scene is analogous to Trump’s hollow promises of peace during his 2024 campaign. Aspirants to office understand that the public HATES corporate subsidies. So they inveigh against them … until they enter office and start handing them out, as Trump has done by purchasing shares in favored ‘state industries’ such as semiconductors.
How do you know these Repuke candidates are lying? Because their pie-holes are moving.
‘Enforcers do not “pull over” fellow enforcers.’ — eric
Indeed. When my sister’s ex-boyfriend, a police supervisor in Houston, visited New Orleans and for some reason didn’t have his service weapon with him, a New Orleans cop lent him a pistol for the duration of his stay. Try that as a ‘civilian’!
Please sir, may I borrow a grenade launcher from the SWAT truck?
The case of the one-armed woman which headlines this article illustrates how cops lie … and how when it’s his word against yours, the state wins. In this rare instance, the video evidence proves that she could not have committed the alleged offense. But her case dismissal was offset by hundreds of other citizens who got mulcted, ‘guilty’ or not.
Jury nullification involves “judging the law itself” in determining whether to convict or acquit a defendant. It is legal in all 50 states, but will not be disclosed to you. In fact, it you bring up jury nullification during voir dire (jury selection) you will be dismissed. If you bring it up as a reason for acquittal, depending on the court, you may be charged with contempt for refusing to base your decision on the defendant’s actions. Although jury nullification is constitutionally legal, many jurisdictions attempt to make it “illegal”.
The key to successful jury nullification is to keep your mouth shut and tell NO ONE of your intent, especially other jurors.
As firearms, environmental and civil-rights laws are technically unconstitutional and illegal, I would be reluctant to convict someone for merely “not having a piece of paper”, “digging a ditch on one’s own land” or “refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding”.
These are but three examples of when “jury nullification” MUST be used. It only takes ONE juror who refuses to convict to either declare a “mistrial” or “acquittal”.
The one holdout juror (you) will probably be lectured by the judge who wants to dispose of the case, but you must stand your ground. The “judge” may threaten you with “contempt of court” but that is also highly illegal. You do not have to explain yourself beyond stating that “reasonable doubt” exists in your mind and that you cannot convict. In every case, do not mention jury nullification.
And you can hear contempt for the commoners when they say, “It’s as bad or worse than drinking and driving”. This reveals the fact that very few actually “drink and drive”.
When MADD (we could do hours on the name alone) got started Florida, e.g., had no law against actual drinking and driving. In fact, on legislator stated it was wrong to deny a man who’d worked all day in the blistering heat the ability to buy a beer and drink it on the drive home. Such was the Before Times. It devolved to the point that the woman that founded it left the organization.
Another irony, aside from the touch/tap/swipe screens on dashboards, is that all the driver “assists” actually encourage inattention behind the wheel. What’s a person to do? The car virtually, and in some cases actually, drives itself…and advertising encourages it buy showing people taking their hands off the wheel while in motion.
Such cognitive dissonance is the source of much of our society’s mental health issues. I know it drive me crazy…
“[C]ognitive dissonance is the source of much of our society’s mental health issues.” You are so right, Mark in BC!