Just Say No

I'm not necessarily against scams. The thing about most scams is that it's fairly obvious they're scams. It's a wonder (to me, anyway) that they ever work in the first place. Therefore, as a proponent of "A fool and his money are soon parted", I have a hard time being overly sympathetic toward people who get taken to the cleaners by people who aren't even cleaners. You need to pay attention. If it's too good be true, it probably freaking is! Thus, don't do it! And I know that some softhead out there is going to be thinking "What about the elderly?" The elderly need to pay attention to! I understand that they're all nice and want to help and always have those weird peppermint candies in their purse that they're always trying to give away, but that's no reason to try to take advantage of them. They need to THINK. (And this is coming from someone (me) with an elderly mother. Lemme tell you, that old broad isn't going to help anyone with anything. And that could not make me happier. I don't know if it's because she doesn't want to get scammed or just because she's mean, but I really don't care. It's an effective strategy against evil-doers.)

But not everyone has any sort of built in B.S. beacon in their head. Let's look at a story from the Orlando Sentinel. Yes, it should come as no surprise that this goes on in Florida, but it can (and does) happen anywhere. Here's the scam: Someone who is over 60 years old and Hispanic is approached by two Spanish speaking people. The two people tell the person that they are in possession of a winning lottery ticket. How exciting! To make it even more exciting, it is, of course, a multi-million dollar lottery ticket! Oh, but then comes the sad news. The sad news is that the lucky couple are in this country illegally. See? Sad! But the person (about to be known as "The one with no more money") can help make this situation not so sad by cashing the ticket for the Spanish speaking foreigners.

Now, to me, I can see that situation occurring. The part about where a couple of illegals buy a lottery ticket and win the friggin' thing. I can also see them needing someone else to cash the ticket for them. Both of those things make perfect sense to me. Everything else, however, does not. They don't have any friends who are legal? What about the nice lady at the welfare office who I'm sure helps them get benefits? She couldn't do it? (These are rhetorical questions because, as you know, the whole situation is fake. Please don't email me with answers to these questions. I understand. You, on the other hand, clearly do not. I'm surprised you even read this blog. Grateful, but surprised.) The other thing that doesn't make any sense to me is why they need money first. The part that doesn't make a lick of sense to me at all is why anyone would give it to them first.

Yes, for some reason, this scam involves the person withdrawing a ton of money from their bank account and then giving it to the scammers. In turn, the scammers give the person the lottery ticket and then take them to a grocery store where they can turn it in. It's when the person is inside and finding out that the ticket is worthless that the scammers have drove away, likely never to be seen again, and taken all of the scamees money with them. In the most recent case, it was $14,500. What a bunch of a-holes.

Does the person deserve to lose that money? Well, I'm not trying to be a royal jackass here, but they kind of do! It's a pretty easy nut to crack in this instance. What say you check what the winning numbers are BEFORE you go taking every dime you have out of savings? Is that so far out of someone's realm of problem solving skills that it would have never occurred to them? And if so, WHY is that?! Why would you not question why they need YOUR money first? Apparently, it was for "collateral". I'm not giving someone ALL of my money for freaking collateral. And if you're someone who considers giving all of YOUR money to someone you've never met who isn't even in this country legally, you might deserve to lose that money. I'm just saying. Granted, I am also wondering how someone who could fall for something like this could have been able to amass that kind of money in the first place, as their dense, dense way of thinking doesn't seem like it would allow for the accumulation of riches.

And even though I've just explained my stance on the scamees, don't take that to mean that I am perfectly OK with people being scammers. I am not. Those who prey upon older people are the scum of the earth and should be treated in such a manner. People like that are not fit to breathe the air that is inhaled by humans. I despise people like that. Despise. But the only reason, the only reason that their scams can work at all is through the cooperation of those who are being scammed. If those people would just stop and think things through for a few moments, I really think that things would turn out a lot better in the end for everyone. Well, except for the scammers. But then again, that is the point!

According to the article "Many do not report the thefts out of embarrassment and fear their adult children will think they are senile". Yes, I can understand that. If my mom told me that she gave all of her money to a couple of Spanish speaking shysters, do you know what the first question I would ask her would be? Naturally, it would be "I didn't know you spoke Spanish." But after that? I would absolutely be questioning her state of mind. Why can't these people think of these things before they make these completely ill-advised moves? Why can't they just think, "If I get taken, my kids are going to be looking at homes for me. I'll be completely embarrassed AND broke. Maybe I won't give my life savings to two people I've never met who can't even follow our immigration laws. Yeah, maybe I won't do that." I don't get that. I doubt I ever will. Why are people so eager to help people that they've never met? I hardly want to help anyone. Maybe more people should adopt my surly attitude about goodwill toward men. It's not always overly pleasant, but there would be a lot less of this sort of thing happening, that's for sure.

Crack In The Crack

Plausible deniability can only get you so far, but it really isn't going to get you anywhere when you use it in situations where deniability is not only not plausible, but it's not even conceivable. You know, like when Paris Hilton said that she thought that the cocaine that fell out of her purse (which she claimed was not hers) was gum. Or when Lindsay Lohan said that the cocaine that was found in jeans that she was wearing wasn't hers because they weren't even her pants! Or when someone has crack cocaine shoved up their ass and claims that it's not theirs. Wait. What was that last one? You know...about the crack?

Right. Well, naturally, this takes place in Floriduh. According to the smoky folks over there at The Smoking Gun, a one 25-year old Raymond Roberts was pulled over for speeding. Upon approaching the car, the authorities noticed the strong stench of marijuana and subsequently searched our hero. It was during said search that "...Deputy Sean Cappiello "felt a soft object in the crack of his buttocks," (and) the suspect "began to tense up." Roberts volunteered to remove the item. “Let me get it, hold on” he said, and proceeded to place a "clear plastic baggie with a green leafy substance." Nice of Mr. Roberts to voluntarily remove the substance from his own butt crack for the officer.

But, wait! There's more! The deputy who searched him asked him if that was it. Meaning: Are these all of the drugs that you have hidden in your butt? Of course, Mr. Roberts claimed that was all that was in his butt. But wouldn't you know it? The deputy decided to continue to search Mr. Roberts and reported: "I then searched his shorts again and felt another object that was in the crack of his buttocks. I pulled the object out from the exterior of his shorts and a clear plastic baggie with a white rock substance fell to the ground." Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Did Mr. Roberts really think that even though they found the first of his posterially concealed substances, somehow, they weren't going to find the other ones? Or maybe because he had such a solid alibi, he just wasn't worried about it. That's right. He had an alibi as to why things were falling out of his butt. He told the cop “The white stuff is not mine, but the weed is.” Oh, what the what? For reals? Yes. For reals. See, "...he claimed...that the crack in his crack was the property of a friend who had previously borrowed the car and left the drug on the passenger seat." Right. Because if there's one thing that defines people who use drugs, it's their inability to always know the whereabouts of their drugs. Drug users are always leaving their drugs just lying around on the front seat of people's cars.

Regardless as to whether or not Mr. Roberts' statement is true or not (it isn't), I'm kind of thinking that once something is IN your body (or at least, very close to being IN your buttock-al region), you don't get to claim that it isn't yours. That's no longer a choice. In the glove compartment? Under the passenger seat? Sure. Give it a whirl and try to get out of those situations by claiming it isn't yours. But when you're clenching it between your arse cheeks, you've got nothing. Oh, wait. I take that back. You have a pretty funny story.

J-Lo Induced Arson

I guess if you're going to watch a movie with your wife, it's probably a good idea to make sure that the movie doesn't contain an actress which will cause said wife to burn your boat, burn your go-kart, burn your jacuzzi and threaten to put your dogs to sleep. Wait. What now?

Correct. Naturally, this took place in Flori-duh. And as we learn from the NWF Daily News, there's all sorts of strange going on in this one. What we have here is a one 34-year old and old enough to know better Shannon Wriska of Milton, Florida, who had watched a movie with her husband, a one Robert Wriska. While we do not know which movie they watched, we do know that it starred Jennifer Lopez. We later learn that Mrs. Wriska is not a fan of the J-Lo, as evidenced by her wacky behavior after the unknown movie. (In her indefensible defense, if she was somehow forced to sit through the God awful Gigli, I can understand being a tad bit irate. It's time out of your life that you'll never get back.)

According to the police report, "Robert stated his wife was very jealous of the actress and did not like him seeing her in the movie. He said an argument ensued over the ...and Shannon later left the house". Very jealous of the actress? Look, I'm not defending this nutjob, but did Robert have any part in perpetuating the jealousy? Any comments like "I wish you looked like her" or "I'd divorce you and marry her in a second"? Anything like that? It still doesn't justify what happened later, but it would lend just a bit of understanding to the seemingly disturbed woman. (And she left? Really? Over J-Lo on the TV? It's not like J-Lo was in their living room. But she left anyway. Hmm. OK, then.)

Now, would you think that a normal person would still be mad about this the next day? (It IS a movie, after all. And really, it's Jennifer Lopez. She's hot and all, don't get me wrong, but I just don't see what folks see in her past the obvious attractiveness.) The key phrase there would be "normal person", which Mrs. Wriska does not seem to be. That's because the next day, when she saw Robert drinking over at their neighbor's house (Oh, come on! Like you couldn't figure out that alcohol was going to be involved in this! Please! I've taught you better than that, haven't I?), Shannon then walked outside of their trailer (And don't you even try to tell me that you didn't see it coming that they lived in a trailer, either! You knew it! I knew it! We all knew it! There had to be alcohol AND a trailer involved!) and "...started pulling hoses off of the motor of his go-kart and lit it on fire". (All right. I didn't really see the go-kart coming into the picture, but I can't say I'm overly surprised at this point.)

As Robert tried to put out the flames on his beloved kart "...he saw Shannon drive away in her vehicle with his dogs, saying she was going to “put them to sleep"." Oh, yeah. That's real normal there. What is wrong with you, ma'am? Seriously. What kind of crazy, drunken, J-Lo hating, go-kart torching woman does such a thing? Probably the same kind of woman who also tries to torch a boat after the go-kart owner resumes drinking beer with the neighbor.

Seriously? Seriously. After Robert went back over to the neighbor's (probably for some much, much needed alcohol) "...someone came in the house and said that Shannon was lighting Robert’s boat on fire and that she was attempting to light a Jacuzzi on fire by pouring gasoline inside of it". (I'm kind of impressed (or amused) that they live in a trailer in Flori-duh and yet have plenty of toys. Go-karts, boats, Jacuzzis, the works. Why the trailer, folks?) Can we just presume that the jacuzzi was empty when she was pouring gasoline inside of it? In this case? Umm...probably not.

As you would imagine (or at least, hope) Shannon was later arrested. When being interviewed at the jail, "...she stated both she and her husband had been fighting throughout the night of Sept. 1 and into the following day. Shannon said Robert called her several times, verbally “harassing” her." Oh, no. Not verbally "harassing" her! You're going to get yourself a go-kart burnin' if you keep that up! Or will you? She also stated that "...Robert lit the go-kart on fire, and (she) didn’t admit to lighting anything on fire." Of course she didn't. Noooo. That boat and that Jacuzzi just spontaneously combusted. And of course he would light his own go-kart on fire. Sure, that makes sense. Or maybe it doesn't. What makes more sense is never watching a movie with Jennifer Lopez in it if this woman is anywhere around you. Oh, and by the way. She looks just like you think she does. Behold!

Told you so.

Is That A Burrito In Your Pants Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?

I almost hesitate to start off with a quote from the article over there at WFTV.com in (of course) Orlando, Flori-duh. I mean, it sums things up really well, but I don't know if I can do any better than what they've already wrote. Some acts are hard to follow and this might just be one of them. I guess I'd better suck it up and give it a shot. Here we go...Today we learned that "The Brevard County doctor who was arrested for groping a woman while dressed as Captain America with a burrito in his pants will not go to jail." See what I mean?

Wait. Captain America? With a...a...burrito? Was it? I don't know that I really want to know, but I know that I really have to ask. What in the hell was he doing with a burrito in his pants? Was it a snack for later? Good Lord, I certainly hope not. Let's continue and see if we can noodle this one through, shall we?

The article that I linked to is rather brief. It does say, however, that "...Doctor Raymond Adamcik will take part in a diversion program for first time offenders". There is a program for people dressed like superheroes with a south-of-the-border delicacy cradled within their undergarments?! Don't get me wrong. Those people are definitely in need of some sort of program. I'm just stunned that one exists, is all. What do you call that, anyway? Never mind. I'm not sure that any of us really want to know.

The circumstances are a bit vague if I'm just referring to that article as well. And really, the circumstances that are cited raise more questions than they seem to answer. When I read, "Adamcik was arrested in April during a bar crawl for medical professionals", I really want to know more. Not much more, but more. For instance, what sort of medical professionals go on a bar crawl dressed as wacky superheroes? That seems like a fairly relevant question for one to pose, doesn't it?

I did find another story over at WFTV.com that gave a few more details on what in the world went on in the first place (which was in 2007, by the way. Why this has taken so long is beyond me.). See, "Everything was fine until...Captain America started getting too forward with a burrito he kept tucked inside his blue tights." The fact that he was there at all with a burrito in his pants, regardless as to which defender of truth, justice and the American way he was dressed as, really doesn't indicate everything was fine.

And it went from "not fine" to "effing weird" really quickly. The doctor (yes, he's really a doctor) "...was asking women if they want to touch it. When one refused, he allegedly took out the burrito and groped her." Ah, yes. The ol' "Wanna touch my burrito?" pick up line. I'm surprised it ended as poorly as it did. Seems like such a winner.

After the woman called the police, there was kind of a problem. See, "...there were so many cartoon characters in the bar at the time, all Captain America's were asked to go outside for a possible identification." It's not likely he would have been able to get away with it, as "The woman pointed out Adamcik and the burrito was found in his boot." In his boot?! What the hell kind of boots does Captain America have where you can shove a burrito in them? What else was in there? Did they find any chalupas? (No, that's not a euphemism.) While I don't know about the chalupas, I do know that I found a mugshot of Captain Gordita Grundle there. Behold!

Charming. Do we have it in color? Maybe a little closer up? Of course we do. Behold!
It still isn't clear why it took three years to resolve, but the article did state that after the arrest "Adamcik was checking himself into a rehab program ". There are rehab programs for something like this?! For reals?? Then again, I guess if there are rehab programs for made up crap like sex addiction, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there are rehab programs for tucking Mexican delicacies within the coverings of one's nether regions. I shouldn't be surprised. But I kind of am. Just a little bit. A little.

That Was A Close Shave

Flori-duh. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Florida continues to keep it's deathgrip on the title of America's wackiest state. And it's awesome. I couldn't make this stuff up, nor would I even dare to hope for stuff this good. And seriously, this one? Oh, this one is good, all right. When I say things like "most people probably shouldn't vote", these folks are who I'm talking about.

We're going down to the Florida Keys where keysnews.com reports on a two car accident that was caused, in part, by the inattention of one of the drivers. Now, if you're thinking "texting while driving", you'd be wrong. Good guess, but far from the case in this instance. You're going to need to think of something a whole heck of a lot less normal than texting while driving in order to fully grasp what it was which had this driver's attention and played a key role in the crash. You know what? Go ahead and think of something really wacky and so not normal that you're going to have a hard time figuring out how it was occurring, much less why it was occurring, all right? All rightee then.

It would seem that a one 37-year old (and old enough to know better) Megan Mariah Barnes was driving "...her 1995 Thunderbird at 11 a.m. when they slammed into the back of a 2006 Chevrolet pickup." At the time of the accident, while Ms. Barnes was in the driver's seat, she did not exactly have control over the vehicle. That is because (brace yourselves) she was having her ex-husband (who was sitting in the passenger's seat) steer the car for her. You see, she was preoccupied with other things. Things such as shaving her privates. Wait. What now?

Correct. Ms. Barnes was in the middle of shaving her genital area whilst her car hurtled 40mph+ down the road as her ex-husband steered it (and steered it poorly, from what I can gather). Now, wait! Before you go getting all judgmental here or anything, let me explain why. Oh, that's right. There's a reason that she was doing this. See, she "...was meeting her boyfriend in Key West and wanted to be ready for the visit." She was what now?

Actually, let's just hold on for just a minute here. Let's take a look at what Ms. Barnes looks like in her mugshot, shall we? I've gotta say that she looks pretty much like I would have figured. She just has that "I was shaving my cootchie on the way to the Keys" look about her for some reason. Behold!

See? About what you pictured? I told you. Anyway, let's move on. So, she has her ex-husband in the car with her on the way to meet her boyfriend. Her ex-husband is assisting her in this odd, odd little endeavor from over there in the passenger seat? Really? There aren't a whole lot of things that I'd do for any of my exes, but of the things that I would actually consider doing, this would never even come close to being one of them. ("Honey? Will you take the wheel for a moment? I need to shave my private area so that my new boyfriend will be pleased with the state of my genitalia?" "You want me to drive while you shave your privates? Sure. No problem. Can I lather you up?" Yeah, that's a conversation I can guarantee that I'm never having with anyone. Ex or current!)

The article goes on to say that Ms. Barnes "...was not supposed to be driving and her 1995 Ford Thunderbird was not supposed to be on the road." It would appear that only the day before this ridiculous incident Ms. Barnes "...was convicted...of DUI with a prior and driving with a suspended license." She was then "...ordered to impound her car, and her driver's license was revoked for five years, after which time she must have a Breathalyzer ignition interlock device on any vehicle she drives." On top of that, she "...was sentenced to nine months' probation." OK, then. This woman should never be behind the wheel. She definitely shouldn't be behind the wheel with a razor, but then again, neither should anyone!

Here's another bit of amusement from this vat of weirdness: After the collision, the woman continued to drive for about another half mile. That's when, since she didn't have a valid license and all, she switched seats with her ex-husband, a one Charles Judy. And before I continue, I just want to question this relationship. I don't know how it is that she has such a hold on this guy that she could get him to steer for her while she shaves her genitals on her way to meet her boyfriend, and then to switch seats with her so that he could be at fault for the accident and leaving the scene?! I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that he grow a pair. Mind you, I'm not going to suggest that he shave them while he drive, but I am going to suggest the growing of said pair. Now, where was I? Oh, right. The trooper.

Now, according to the trooper, a one Trooper Gary Dunick, "She jumps in the back seat and he moves over. It was like the old comedy bit, 'Who's on first?' " Um, excuse me? Sir, I've heard the old comedy bit "Who's on first?" It was NOTHING like that. Nothing at all! I'm pretty sure that neither Abbott, NOR Costello, ever shaved themselves during that bit. Pretty sure of that. It's been a while since I've heard it, but I'm fairly comfortable with asserting that there was no shaving going on. None. Not even a little. Not even any Nair. (Wait. Did Abbott wax from time to time? Never mind. I digress.) That bit was simply wordplay, sir. No switching places ever occurred. ::: sigh :::
Ms. Barnes went to jail and was charged with a number of things, none of which was stupidity, unfortunately. Mr. Judy, however, was not charged with anything including stupidity. And while I know that stupid isn't a crime, I'm wishing they could have charged him or at least locked him up for six months solely on principle. That principle is the one that you're a guy who helps his ex-wife shave her genitals while she drives so that her private areas are all nice and clean for her new man! Laws based upon general principles dictated by specific situations. Hmmmm. I like the idea. It would never fly with all of those like the aforementioned Mr. Judy, but I really like the idea.

A Not So Conjugal Visit to Jail

So, Sunday was Valentine's Day. I'm not a big Valentine's Day fan. And I've never been able to really articulate why that is until now. Even now I wouldn't have been able to articulate it if it hadn't been for my fabulous friend and her incredible way with words. Her explanation (which I copied from her Facebook with neither permission, nor malice) was such:

I don't like Vday because it's a holiday that makes too many people (mostly women) sad. If I were rich I would make sure every single woman got flowers from a secret person on this silly day. These huge professions of love with candy and flowers and everything is nice, but there are so many sad lonely people. All this does is make them feel like sh*t! Luckily I have never felt unloved, and my house is filled with flowers. But what about all those other sad people? I don't like holidays that exclude the very people we should be watching out for. See? It's brilliant. And I have the feeling that Denise Rutledge is one of those people we should be watching out for.

Ms. Rutledge was apparently having a difficult time on Valentine's Day. It would seem that the one that she is enamored with (or thought that she was enamored with) was incarcerated during the day of love. At first, Ms. Rutledge did the first thing that would pop into most people's head in that situation. She allegedly began to drink heavily. (Actually, if I were in that situation, I think drinking heavily might be the first thing I'd do, but it would be my second choice as I'd spend a fair amount of time contemplating jumping off a cliff if I was in her position.)

Now, if there's anything that is a highly effective aphrodisiac, it is alcohol and lots of it. There's a reason why all the girls get prettier around closing time. (The animals too!) And that reason is the alcohol. So, being that it was Valentine's Day and all, an apparently lonely Ms. Rutledge decided to make her way down to the Flagler County Jail and request herself a conjugal visit with an inmate. The story provided by the fine folks over there at News 13 does not specify if Ms. Rutledge had any particular inmate in mind when she made this request, only that she was there for a conjugal visit.

Unfortunately, Ms. Rutledge was turned away. No, it wasn't because of her alleged intoxication or because maybe visiting hours were over or anything like that. It was because the Flagler County Jail turns away everyone who requests a conjugal visit because they don't have conjugal visits at the Flagler County Jail. At all! (By the way, it really shouldn't surprise you by now that Flagler County is in what state? Floriduh, that is correct.)

The article states that "Because of the way the 45-year-old was acting, a deputy went out to her car to give her a field sobriety test." Because of the way that she was acting? What way was that? Asking for a conjugal visit when they don't have conjugal visits? Is that the "way" that they're referring to? I don't know why they'd follow her out to her car for something like that. You'd think that they'd just test her right there. Due to the previously alluded to alleged overconsumption of intoxicating beverages, Ms. Rutledge failed the sobriety test (shocking, I know!) and ended up blowing a .256, which is over three times the legal limit. She was then charged with a DUI and eventually released on a $500 bond. Genius. Those Floridians are sheer geniuses. But going back to what I quoted my friend as saying, shouldn't we be looking out for people like Denise Rutledge so that more attempted drunken conjugal visits don't occur? I think we should.

Driving? I Wasn't Driving.

Let's take a gander at what's going on down there in Flori-duh for a moment, shall we? Trust me, it won't take long.

Over there at the NWF Daily News, we learn of a one Charles Jesse Johnson who was out for a little drive on Christmas Day. Sounds nice. Nothing wrong with that. But the thing is that when he was at a red light, he decided he was better than the red light and just went right on through.

Now, I'm not necessarily judging that. We've all been there. The light is red. It seems like it's red forever. And we just want to go. There probably isn't another car around for miles. It's probably safe to go. But the difference between when I think that and (probably) when you think that and when Mr. Johnson thinks that is that you and I would look around for a cop. Once we've determined that there isn't one and that we are, in fact, the only car around for miles, we then proceed through the light. Mr. Johnson skipped the first part of those steps and went straight for the going through the light. And that was unfortunate because had he taken the time to complete Step One, he would have noticed that there was, in fact, a cop in the vicinity. That is, if you consider right behind you to be "in the vicinity".

That's right. There was an Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office deputy sitting right behind him. So Mr. Johnson turns left, the deputy follows suit and pulls Mr. Johnson over. This is where things start to get weird.

Mr. Johnson was the only individual in the vehicle. He was the only individual in the vehicle before the traffic stop and he was the only individual in the vehicle after the traffic stop. That is key as to understanding my complete bewilderment as to what Mr. Johnson thought that he was going to accomplish by getting into the back seat after he stopped his car. Wait. He what now?

Correct. According to the police report "He had jumped in there when the vehicle came to a stop." The article also stated that when Mr. Johnson's driving history was checked, it was discovered that his license had been revoked in June, but the he had also had his license revoked four other times and had it suspended seven times as well! He ended up being charged "...with driving with a revoked license as a habitual traffic offender." It's unfortunate that he couldn't have been charged with being a dumbass as well.

Seriously, what was he hoping to accomplish? Did he think that the cop was going to see him in the back seat and think "Huh. That's odd. I wonder how this vehicle was driving itself down the road. Clearly the only guy in the car couldn't have been driving it, as he is obviously in the back seat and we all know that wouldn't be possible." I don't think that could have happened, would have happened or even had the slightest chance of remotely happening ever! When the cop asked him for his license (provided that he didn't just go with the "What in the heck are you doing back there?" first), did he use his oh-so-rational line of thinking and try something along the lines of "What are you asking me for my license for? I'm in the back seat. What makes you think that I was driving?" I can't imagine.

So kids, pay attention here. If the light is red, please wait until it turns green before proceeding through the intersection. If you're going to even think of breaking traffic laws, use those shiny and reflective objects in your vehicle known as mirrors and make sure that law enforcement isn't in the area (or, at the very least, right behind you). And if you do end up getting pulled over, don't be playing musical chairs inside of your car and hopping from the driver's seat into the back seat. You're still going to get a ticket. The only difference will be that you'll get a ticket and you'll look like a freaking idiot.