Spartanburg Leo Interaction "Shoot Me Like Michael Brown

[ticktwrter]

But that is exactly what you're doing with the seatbelt stop.

It is no where near the same thing. How is it the same thing? If I am walking down the sidewalk where I have a legal right to be and look towards your open blinds and see you beating your wife should I ignore it or break down the door and save your wife?

 

[hornadylnl]

It is no where near the same thing. How is it the same thing? If I am walking down the sidewalk where I have a legal right to be and look towards your open blinds and see you beating your wife should I ignore it or break down the door and save your wife?

If you SEE me beating my wife, you have cause. You're using my tall grass to look my wife over for bruises when she answers the door and you have no cause to believe I'm beating her.

 

[steveh_131]

Steve, IF that were true, then I would feel bad, but I know better. I enjoy my profession.

Research shows that less speed limit enforcement resulted in safer roads.

Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox

Here is what the Montana data shows. (chart below) After all the politically correct safety programs were in place and fully operational, complete with federal safety funds, more laws and citations being issued. Here are the results.1. After the new Speed Limits were established, interstates fatal accidents went up 111%. From a modern low of 27 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 56 fatal accidents with speed limits.
2. On interstates and federal primary highways combined, Montana went from a modern low of 101 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 143 fatal accidents with speed limits.
3. After a 6 year downward trend in the percentage of multiple vehicle accidents on its 2 lane primary highways, multiple vehicle accident rates increased again.
4. With the expectation of higher speed when there was no daytime limit, Montana’s seat belt usage was well above the national average on its highways without a primary law, lane and road courtesy increased, speeds remained relatively stable and fatal accidents dropped to a modern low. After the new limits, fatal accidents climbed to a modern high on these classifications of highway, road courtesy decreased and flow conflict accidents rose again.

It turns out that leaving people alone would probably save lives.

 

[CZB1962]

I have to say I am shocked by this thread. I honestly thought this would be a slam dunk in favor of the officer. I personally thought he showed tremendous restraint by not using a tazer on the guy.

I guess I am a little surprised by the loathing of cops by some and the idea by others that since you don't agree with a law, then the cops should not enforce it.

Interesting to say the least.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Research shows that less speed limit enforcement resulted in safer roads.

Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox



It turns out that leaving people alone would probably save lives.

There is no causal relationship shown in your article that would indicate this. They did not state that the act of enforcement was to blame for higher fatality rates. They indicated that "artificially low" speed limits could be, and I would agree with that to some extent. Interestingly enough they DID credit increased seat belt use in Montana with being a contributing factor in the reduction of fatalities though. Huh. Go figure. But seriously... Montana? The same Montana where you can literally drive for a hundred miles and not see another vehicle? Let's see them remove the speed limit in LA or Chicago and see what happens to fatality rates. I mean, good for the goose, good for the gander, right? If it's a universal truth that higher speed limits or no speed limits save lives, then it should apply in LA or Chicago just as it does in rural Montana.

Oh, and this was priceless: "mothers are thrown into jail for not wearing seat belts". Wow. Hyperbole much?? Eliminate seat belt laws! It's for the children!

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I have to say I am shocked by this thread. I honestly thought this would be a slam dunk in favor of the officer. I personally thought he showed tremendous restraint by not using a tazer on the guy.

I guess I am a little surprised by the loathing of cops by some and the idea by others that since you don't agree with a law, then the cops should not enforce it.

Interesting to say the least.

Ain't it though? You must be new here. Welcome to !

 

[CZB1962]

Ain't it though? You must be new here. Welcome to !

Let's just say I have not become too jaded yet. Always worth an hour or so when I get home from work.

 

[hornadylnl]

You are referring to a pre textual stop...look into whether that is legal or not

Driving While Black isn't cause for a stop. Pulling people over for seatbelt violations is an expansion of probable cause which allows more pretextual stops. Officers have openly admitted that they use things like seatbelt violations to fish for bigger crimes. I found this link and from reading it, it only seems to contradict itself. It's sad that a single court decision requires a team of lawyers to interpret and almost as many words as the Constitution of the United States.

http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf

Also, if I recall correctly, when Indiana first passed seat belt laws, it was NOT cause to initiate a stop. It changed some time after that.

 

[ticktwrter]

If you SEE me beating my wife, you have cause. You're using my tall grass to look my wife over for bruises when she answers the door and you have no cause to believe I'm beating her.

You really need some help with the paranoia. OK, if I knock on your door to tell you about the tall grass and you wife answers and had a black eye and bloody lip....do I 1) deliver the news about the grass height, 2) ignore the obvious signs of a possible domestic abuse or 3) deal with both?

 

[ticktwrter]

Driving While Black isn't cause for a stop. Pulling people over for seatbelt violations is an expansion of probable cause which allows more pretextual stops. Officers have openly admitted that they use things like seatbelt violations to fish for bigger crimes. I found this link and from reading it, it only seems to contradict itself. It's sad that a single court decision requires a team of lawyers to interpret and almost as many words as the Constitution of the United States.

http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf


Also, if I recall correctly, when Indiana first passed seat belt laws, it was NOT cause to initiate a stop. It changed some time after that.

Indiana had a secondary law for seat belts originally meaning another reason was needed to make the stop then you could write for the the violation. That law was changed to make seat belt enforcement a primary law meaning I only need to see the violation to make the stop. I can't stop you to determine compliance with the law. There are many times I am behind someone and think they are not wearing their seat belt. If I am not 100% certain such as seeing the latch plate dangling form the retractor, I won't make the stop. Most LEO are not out to get you despite what you think.

 

[steveh_131]

There is no causal relationship shown in your article that would indicate this. They did not state that the act of enforcement was to blame for higher fatality rates. They indicated that "artificially low" speed limits could be, and I would agree with that to some extent. Interestingly enough they DID credit increased seat belt use in Montana with being a contributing factor in the reduction of fatalities though. Huh. Go figure. But seriously... Montana? The same Montana where you can literally drive for a hundred miles and not see another vehicle? Let's see them remove the speed limit in LA or Chicago and see what happens to fatality rates. I mean, good for the goose, good for the gander, right? If it's a universal truth that higher speed limits or no speed limits save lives, then it should apply in LA or Chicago just as it does in rural Montana.

Oh, and this was priceless: "mothers are thrown into jail for not wearing seat belts". Wow. Hyperbole much?? Eliminate seat belt laws! It's for the children!

I could haul out the research and statistics again but I just don't see any point. This guy's brain would explode if he started to realize that his job that he takes so much pride in amounts to nothing more than roadside extortion.

The truth of the matter is that speed control is about as effective as gun control. Encouraging drivers to focus on rules and watch out for cops instead of focusing on being safe is counterproductive and downright stupid. But it brings in the cash so I know it won't be changing.

 

[rgrimm01]

Several years ago, I was in SC for quite a few years. It was like stepping back in time. For instance, I was "Yank" from the time I got there until the time I left, and they meant it. They still had, seemingly, not forgotten that war and had continued to harbor a certain sentiment that bordered on open and willful hostility.

In the context of this thread, people were treated differently and this treatment was culturally ingrained into the psyches of all parties. I have not been back to verify whether or not this is the current climate. I can say with certainty that this is the way it was. I have seen it. Who would be willing to walk a mile in those shoes?

It is not difficult to understand the undercurrent of anger and resentment. I have no answers, just an observation from bygone years.



Edit: Oh, and the fishing was AWESOME...

 

[ticktwrter]

I could haul out the research and statistics again but I just don't see any point. This guy's brain would explode if he started to realize that his job that he takes so much pride in amounts to nothing more than roadside extortion.

The truth of the matter is that speed control is about as effective as gun control. Encouraging drivers to focus on rules and watch out for cops instead of focusing on being safe is counterproductive and downright stupid. But it brings in the cash so I know it won't be changing.

Life is full of "focus on rules." I think without rules we would have chaos. If it is too much for you to be able to concentrate on following the rules maybe driving is too complicated for you. Drive is a multi-tasked event requiring constant adjustment.

 

[steveh_131]

Life is full of "focus on rules." I think without rules we would have chaos.

The rules can and should be simple. Don't hit other vehicles. Don't hit pedestrians. Don't damage private property. Those are the important rules. The rest is just nanny state micro-management. Speed limits, right-of-way, etc. are great guidelines for establishing liability in an accident but being followed around by cops just waiting for the tiniest, harmless infraction is counter-productive.

I did further research on the subject here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ion/333601-fewer-regulations-safer-roads.html

The lower–than–US fatality rates on the German Autobahn (where flow management is the primary safety strategy), and now Montana's experience, would indicate that using speed limits and speed enforcement as the cornerstone of US highway safety policy is a major mistake. It is time to accept the fact that increases in traffic speeds are the natural by product of advancing technology. People do, in fact, act in a reasonable and responsible manner without constant government intervention.

There have been few attempts to de-regulate things (probably because you guys haul in the cash thanks to all of these regulations), but in that link I brought up the few examples that there are, and they all resulted in safer roads.

 

[ticktwrter]

The rules can and should be simple. Don't hit other vehicles. Don't hit pedestrians. Don't damage private property. Those are the important rules. The rest is just nanny state micro-management. Speed limits, right-of-way, etc. are great guidelines for establishing liability in an accident but being followed around by cops just waiting for the tiniest, harmless infraction is counter-productive.

I did further research on the subject here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ion/333601-fewer-regulations-safer-roads.html



There have been few attempts to de-regulate things (probably because you guys haul in the cash thanks to all of these regulations), but in that link I brought up the few examples that there are, and they all resulted in safer roads.

You are really scary. I guess we don't need rules like which way to drive on roads. Who cares who has the right of way? You give yourself too much credit that LEO's are following people around. You need help.

 

[ticktwrter]

The rules can and should be simple. Don't hit other vehicles. Don't hit pedestrians. Don't damage private property. Those are the important rules. The rest is just nanny state micro-management. Speed limits, right-of-way, etc. are great guidelines for establishing liability in an accident but being followed around by cops just waiting for the tiniest, harmless infraction is counter-productive.

I did further research on the subject here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ion/333601-fewer-regulations-safer-roads.html



There have been few attempts to de-regulate things (probably because you guys haul in the cash thanks to all of these regulations), but in that link I brought up the few examples that there are, and they all resulted in safer roads.

I guess had not an officer been enforcing those "nanny" rules we would have missed Timothy McVeigh and the Son of Sam was caught by a simple traffic ticket.

 

[steveh_131]

You are really scary. I guess we don't need rules like which way to drive on roads. Who cares who has the right of way?

The research does seem to speak for itself. Less rules, safer roads.

I guess had not an officer been enforcing those "nanny" rules we would have missed Timothy McVeigh and the Son of Sam was caught by a simple traffic ticket.

I vote for less ticket writing and more real police work. I won't support something ineffective and oppressive just because it happens to catch a criminal every now and then.

 

[ticktwrter]

The research does seem to speak for itself. Less rules, safer roads.



I vote for less ticket writing and more real police work. I won't support something ineffective and oppressive just because it happens to catch a criminal every now and then.[/COLOR]

Both are done every day around the state. I guess your mind is closed. Don't brake the laws and you never have to get stopped

 

[jbombelli]

Both are done every day around the state. I guess your mind is closed. Don't brake the laws and you never have to get stopped

That's bull****

People sometimes get tickets when they haven't committed any violations whatsoever.

I know this firsthand. Ask me about my ticket for 78 mph in a moving truck with a speed governor installed preventing the truck from exceeding 62 mph.

 

[jamil]

Both are done every day around the state. I guess your mind is closed. Don't brake the laws and you never have to get stopped

Neither this nor which high profile criminals got caught by routine traffic stops justify traffic rules. They either serve the intended purpose or not. I'm not opposed to having rules that help crowded roads be less chaotic. But either they're helpful for that purpose or they're not. We could probably get rid of most of the traffic code and the sky would not fall. Insurance companies would surely try to convince us it should though.