Spartanburg Leo Interaction "Shoot Me Like Michael Brown

[phylodog]

How about police work? Talk to friends and family, follow people, investigate. Stake out the homes of known associates. Leaving motorists the heck alone ought to free up all kinds of resources for this kind of activity.

Many agencies have units sets up to search for the most serious felons with warrants, we do and random traffic stops is not one of their tactics. The reality is that in large cities, those with felony warrants outnumber police officers 15 to 1. Unless they pose a significant risk it is simply assumed that they'll turn up eventually by either being caught committing another crime or during a traffic stop. We are not allowed to randomly stop whomever we want and demand ID. We are allowed to conduct stops of vehicle traveling on the people's roads for believed violations of the peoples traffic laws.

 

[Rookie]

The Bizarre Story of How American Cops Became Stormtroopers | Cracked.com

I haven't read it yet...

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Bull****. Intentionally not voting is indeed voting. It's voting for none of the above which is every bit as valid as voting for any one of them.

And as far as voting to affect change, it works better in theory than it does reality for several reasons that might make for an interesting discussion in a different thread.

And while I'm not going to follow Steve and horn all the way off the cliff, I'll say that I'd rather not be stopped for a fishing expedition. It's an unnecessary interference into my life. However, if I happen to fit the description of someone they're looking for, fine. Stop me, check me out, apologize for the inconvenience when you find out I'm not the guy, then let me be on my way. But don't just stop me for a fictitious broken tail light just so you can see if I'm doing anything illegal.

Well if not voting is the same as voting, we could just do away with elections altogether and probably save a lot of time and effort, not to mention all those annoying campaign commercials, yard signs, debates, etc.. You're sure that's what you want? I mean if you're that certain that elections serve no purpose, then I assume that you're happy with the current crop of politicians being in office in perpetuity.

As for being stopped for a fishing expedition, just check your vehicle to make sure it's legal (headlights, tail lights, license plate lights, etc.), wear your seatbelt and drive the speed limit. Voila'. No reason to be stopped.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

What's the difference? Is pulling over random people any better than stopping random people on a sidewalk and demanding ID? Is this freedom?



How about police work? Talk to friends and family, follow people, investigate. Stake out the homes of known associates. Leaving motorists the heck alone ought to free up all kinds of resources for this kind of activity.

Wait, being pulled over for a traffic violation is too intrusive for you, but having police sit outside your home and tail you just because you know someone that may have committed a crime is not? Um, okay. I guess we have different definitions of "intrusive".

 

[steveh_131]

Sure you can. But you can't complain about them if you don't vote. If one has a problem about which laws are worthy of enforcing, as Steve does, then that's the way to affect change, not armchair quarterbacking and second guessing the police.

I vote. And I complain. Deal with it.

Wait, being pulled over for a traffic violation is too intrusive for you, but having police sit outside your home and tail you just because you know someone that may have committed a crime is not? Um, okay. I guess we have different definitions of "intrusive".

One involves an initiation of force, one does not. One potentially ends in death, one does not. One involves taking money from motorists who are just trying to go to work, one does not.

Please show me where I said to go willy-nilly pulling people over at random. Jeesh. Chile out man.

This seems to be how a huge number of cops spend their day. And they justify it because they happen to catch a bad guy every now and then and can collect boatloads of money from motorists while they're at it.

We are not allowed to randomly stop whomever we want and demand ID. We are allowed to conduct stops of vehicle traveling on the people's roads for believed violations of the peoples traffic laws.

We seem to be having a hard time figuring out exactly what we are arguing about. Let's nail it down.

This guy was pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt. I think that's a stupid reason to pull someone over. So do you, except that you catch a lot of criminals that way.

It's efficacy in randomly catching criminals is not a valid justification for an otherwise stupid law. If it was a valid justification then we could come up with all sorts of other ways to randomly force people to show ID, and those would be justified as well. Why don't we criminalize walking while texting, imagine how many people you could ID and frisk on a daily basis?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Being pulled over for a traffic violation is an "initiation of force" potentially ending in death?? Sheesh... I'd hate to see how you'd react if someone patted you on the back. That must constitute an all out violent attack. Seriously, if you're that paranoid about any interaction with law enforcement, maybe it's best to just hunker down and never go out in public. Me? I'm gonna buckle my seatbelt, occasionally exceed the posted speed limit and take my chances. If I get pulled over, I'll cooperate with the officer and go on about my day.

 

[hornadylnl]

Being pulled over for a traffic violation is an "initiation of force" potentially ending in death?? Sheesh... I'd hate to see how you'd react if someone patted you on the back. That must constitute an all out violent attack. Seriously, if you're that paranoid about any interaction with law enforcement, maybe it's best to just hunker down and never go out in public. Me? I'm gonna buckle my seatbelt, occasionally exceed the posted speed limit and take my chances. If I get pulled over, I'll cooperate with the officer and go on about my day.

I do the same every day as well. But can we just dispense of the pretense that using a seatbelt violation to fish for a traffic stop squares with the intent of the constitution?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I do the same every day as well. But can we just dispense of the pretense that using a seatbelt violation to fish for a traffic stop squares with the intent of the constitution?

What if the seatbelt violation is the only thing of which the driver is guilty? Not everything is a nefarious plot to steal our freedoms. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[hornadylnl]

What if the seatbelt violation is the only thing of which the driver is guilty? Not everything is a nefarious plot to steal our freedoms. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Then give me my seatbelt ticket and let me be on my way. Having a gut feeling that a motorist is a criminal and you just know you'll get a bust isn't probable cause to initiate a stop. Being fortunate to see that he doesn't have his seat belt on isn't magic justification to play 21 questions with the driver, ask for a search, yada, yada. To claim it does is a perversion of the purpose of the stop.

 

[steveh_131]

Being pulled over for a traffic violation is an "initiation of force" potentially ending in death??

If you tell them to leave you alone, do they go away? No. It's an initiation of force. If you force them to leave you alone, will your actions eventually end in death? Highly likely.

Traffic stops are one of the most dangerous activities for cops.

Me? I'm gonna buckle my seatbelt, occasionally exceed the posted speed limit and take my chances. If I get pulled over, I'll cooperate with the officer and go on about my day.

Good boy.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If you tell them to leave you alone, do they go away? No. It's an initiation of force. If you force them to leave you alone, will your actions eventually end in death? Highly likely.

Traffic stops are one of the most dangerous activities for cops.

[/COLOR]

Good boy.

Okay let's look at this another way. If the IRS tells you you've been selected for an audit, do you just tell them to go away? And would they? I mean, talk about a fishing expedition! Why would you expect them (the police) to go away if you are violating a law (whether you agree with it or not is moot)? If you shot someone in cold blood, and the cops showed up to arrest you, would you just tell them to go away? I mean, "some folks just need killin'", should be all they need to know, and they should just let you go, right? If it seems like I'm carrying this to extremes, it's because I am. Your disagreement with a law doesn't make it any less illegal to break said law. You are certainly free to stand on principle. But don't be surprised if doing so gets you a fine, or a stay in the pokey.

 

[steveh_131]

Okay let's look at this another way. If the IRS tells you you've been selected for an audit, do you just tell them to go away? And would they? I mean, talk about a fishing expedition! Why would you expect them (the police) to go away if you are violating a law (whether you agree with it or not is moot)? If you shot someone in cold blood, and the cops showed up to arrest you, would you just tell them to go away? I mean, "some folks just need killin'", should be all they need to know, and they should just let you go, right? If it seems like I'm carrying this to extremes, it's because I am. Your disagreement with a law doesn't make it any less illegal to break said law. You are certainly free to stand on principle. But don't be surprised if doing so gets you a fine, or a stay in the pokey.

You're missing my point. Initiating a forceful interaction, as a police officer, is a big deal. Sometimes with fatal consequences.

They should be extremely cautious about when and why they choose to initiate them. Not wearing a seatbelt is among the dumbest of reasons.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Then give me my seatbelt ticket and let me be on my way. Having a gut feeling that a motorist is a criminal and you just know you'll get a bust isn't probable cause to initiate a stop. Being fortunate to see that he doesn't have his seat belt on isn't magic justification to play 21 questions with the driver, ask for a search, yada, yada. To claim it does is a perversion of the purpose of the stop.

Pulling someone over because they might not have their seatbelt buckled and pulling them over because you observed that they did not have it buckled are two very different things, wouldn't you agree? There is no probable cause in the first instance, but there certainly is in the second. In the second instance, if a warrant pops up when the driver's license is run, then what's the problem?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You're missing my point. Initiating a forceful interaction, as a police officer, is a big deal. Sometimes with fatal consequences.

They should be extremely cautious about when and why they choose to initiate them. Not wearing a seatbelt is among the dumbest of reasons.

No, I think I get your point. You think seatbelt laws are dumb and therefore should be ignored by everyone.

 

[hornadylnl]

Pulling someone over because they might not have their seatbelt buckled and pulling them over because you observed that they did not have it buckled are two very different things, wouldn't you agree? There is no probable cause in the first instance, but there certainly is in the second. In the second instance, if a warrant pops up when the driver's license is run, then what's the problem?

I must not be communicating clearly enough. If you pull me over and give me a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt and leave it at that, I won't complain. If you pull me over because you think you can bust me for something big and the only probable cause you have is me not wearing a seatbelt, I will complain.

That guy driving the car with 24's has to be a drug dealing gangbanger. I mean why else would he have those rims? I'm going to pull him over so I can smell for drugs, check for DUI, etc but I have no probable cause for doing so. Oh snap, I see he doesn't have his seatbelt on so now I have probable cause to investigate all those things I had no probable cause for before. To me, that stinks of the fruit of the poisonous tree. In the above example, you aren't pulling the guy over for an infraction, you're using the infraction to initiate a stop that you otherwise couldn't.

 

[jamil]

Well if not voting is the same as voting, we could just do away with elections altogether and probably save a lot of time and effort, not to mention all those annoying campaign commercials, yard signs, debates, etc.. You're sure that's what you want? I mean if you're that certain that elections serve no purpose, then I assume that you're happy with the current crop of politicians being in office in perpetuity.

As for being stopped for a fishing expedition, just check your vehicle to make sure it's legal (headlights, tail lights, license plate lights, etc.), wear your seatbelt and drive the speed limit. Voila'. No reason to be stopped.

From this feedback it's obvious you think I'm saying something I'm not saying. I'm not saying that I want no elections. I'm not advocating that people don't go to the polls. I don't want fewer choices. I am simply disagreeing with the notion that not going to the polls to cast a vote automatically removes the right to complain, and that along with the choices on the ballot is the choice "none of the above".

And I'm not talking about mindless, civicly disconnected, pop culture more interested in the dimensions of Kim Kardashian's ass than who is representing them in government. I'm talking about people who do understand the choices and simply don't feel any of the available options represent them.

Informed "not voting" is still voting.

On the other thing, if I have violated traffic laws, fine. Pull me over. Do your thing. Ticket me, warn me, whatever. And let me be on my way. My problem was with what someone said about using a fictitious faulty tail light to pull someone over they thought was suspicious. That's bull****. People have lives. If you're going to disrupt my life, please make sure I've actually broken a law and deserve to have it disrupted.

I got pulled over years ago for what I think was really a fishing expedition. Caused me to be late for a meeting which cost me. And he was a real dick about it. Changed his story twice about why he pulled me over. Seemed disappointed he didn't find anything to get me on.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I mean if you're that certain that elections serve no purpose, then I assume that you're happy with the current crop of politicians being in office in perpetuity.

Here's the way I feel. Given that elections resulted in the current crop, then I really (and I mean REALLY) don't see any reason to believe that elections would ever result in a better crop.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I must not be communicating clearly enough. If you pull me over and give me a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt and leave it at that, I won't complain. If you pull me over because you think you can bust me for something big and the only probable cause you have is me not wearing a seatbelt, I will complain.

That guy driving the car with 24's has to be a drug dealing gangbanger. I mean why else would he have those rims? I'm going to pull him over so I can smell for drugs, check for DUI, etc but I have no probable cause for doing so. Oh snap, I see he doesn't have his seatbelt on so now I have probable cause to investigate all those things I had no probable cause for before. To me, that stinks of the fruit of the poisonous tree. In the above example, you aren't pulling the guy over for an infraction, you're using the infraction to initiate a stop that you otherwise couldn't.

No, that's what I thought you meant. In the first instance, the cop sees you not wearing your seatbelt and pulls you over - You and I are both fine with that.

In the second instance there is no probable cause observed until after the cop has pulled the car over. In that scenario I also agree with you. The stop should not have occurred.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

From this feedback it's obvious you think I'm saying something I'm not saying. I'm not saying that I want no elections. I'm not advocating that people don't go to the polls. I don't want fewer choices. I am simply disagreeing with the notion that not going to the polls to cast a vote automatically removes the right to complain, and that along with the choices on the ballot is the choice "none of the above".

And I'm not talking about mindless, civicly disconnected, pop culture more interested in the dimensions of Kim Kardashian's ass than who is representing them in government. I'm talking about people who do understand the choices and simply don't feel any of the available options represent them.

Informed "not voting" is still voting.

On the other thing, if I have violated traffic laws, fine. Pull me over. Do your thing. Ticket me, warn me, whatever. And let me be on my way. My problem was with what someone said about using a fictitious faulty tail light to pull someone over they thought was suspicious. That's bull****. People have lives. If you're going to disrupt my life, please make sure I've actually broken a law and deserve to have it disrupted.

I got pulled over years ago for what I think was really a fishing expedition. Caused me to be late for a meeting which cost me. And he was a real dick about it. Changed his story twice about why he pulled me over. Seemed disappointed he didn't find anything to get me on.

Fair enough.

Still don't understand the "fictitious tail light out" bit though. Either a light is out or it is not.

 

[hornadylnl]

No, that's what I thought you meant. In the first instance, the cop sees you not wearing your seatbelt and pulls you over - You and I are both fine with that.

In the second instance there is no probable cause observed until after the cop has pulled the car over. In that scenario I also agree with you. The stop should not have occurred.

I'm talking about observing the seatbelt violation before initiating the fishing expedition. IE, officer determines he wants to make the stop before having cause to do so. He follows the guy and notices his plate light is out and bingo probable cause. The plate light has not a damned thing to do with the stop, it's just the justification for it.