Ask a cop a question...

[oldsalt]

So it is a crime for your license plate to be crooked?

I didn't even know you could get a ticket for it. My guess is it was an excuse to stop him and find out if the car was stolen.

A ticket could be issued but it would be dismissed in court (as was the ticket I got long ago for a burned out headlight).

As for the reason for stopping him, too few Americans are aware of an important consideration in the matter of car stops. One of the most insidious components of the War On Drugs are the subsidies handed out to civilian police departments whose performance statistics satisfy a minimum requirement of anti-drug activity (arrests). In fact, the S.W.A.T. activities of most police departments, including the paramilitary weapons, gear and clothing are included in the subsidies.

Because the vast majority of drug arrests are facilitated by car stops the police have developed profiles upon which their stops are selected. These profiles are based on statistics that reveal consistent factors in car stops which have resulted in past drug arrests. Some of these factors are an older, shabby car with a younger driver, moving suspiciously within the speed limit. In some places a Black driver rates high as a profile factor.

The police have learned that stopping cars which fit the profile increase their chances of making a "drug collar" and because of the federal subsidy the pressure is on to make those arrests. So some cops will look for any reason to stop a profiled car while others will invent a reason (speeding, etc). Anyone who doubts what I'm saying here need only watch a few (educational) episodes of the tv documentary, COPS, in which the process is seen time and time again.

BS. Depends on the circumstances.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh lord. Talk about your non-sequiturs.

Here's a major difference, the Freedom Riders did exactly what the cops told them to do. They made the police look stupid by complying with them.

That's a far cry from a lone, belligerent driver "without a cause".

They also broke the law, this guy did not.

In your opinion...... You don't have fiat on the issue of "right and wrong".

Yet you do?

Again, this guy could have made a constitutional argument without provoking a police officer.

Is it illegal to provoke a police officer? Absolutely not. Does it give the police a reason to suspect you might be altered or possibly dangerous? Absolutely.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently ruled that people do not have the right to resist the police when they are wrong because they can challenge them in court later and it might end up escalating in violence and someone getting hurt. That means they agree with you.

The Attorney General of that state filed a brief asking them to overturn that decision. Why should people who are going about their business have to put up with the police doing whatever they want simply because it might provoke them to be challenged? Until you can answer that in a way that does not lead to the police having excess power and taking us another step down the road to a police state you are wrong.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

My wife is an attorney. She watched the video and basically thought the cop had justification to taze him the second he stuck his hands in his pocket.

[...]

It's a good thing the subject driver didn't have your wife as his lawyer in the federal litigation he prevailed in. But I'm sure you will come up with some reason why that is not relevant.

For your information there are many things police routinely do which would be found unacceptable, even illegal, in court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He had 5 minutes to asses the situation and defuse it, he chose to escalate it.

He tried to defuse the situation. The driver was non-compliant. He choose to diffuse the situation by evoking "less lethal" force. I don't think he was wrong.

By the way, I was once told by a lawyer that I should always turn off the engine, get out of the car, lock it, and put my keys on the roof whenever a police officer pulls me over for anything. He told me this would be a direct assertion of my right to refuse to allow the police to violate my 4th Amendment rights and search my car in the guise of a traffic stop. When did the police get the right to demand I not follow the advice of my attorney?

LOL. What are you even talking about? What your attorney told you to do and what this guy did are diametrically different.

I'd like to find the attorney who would tell you that behaving the way this guy did was smart or legal.

My wife is an attorney. She watched the video and basically thought the cop had justification to taze him the second he stuck his hands in his pocket.

Out of curiosity, have you ever followed that lawyers advice? How did that turn out for you?

All he had to do was answer the question.

Have I ever followed that advice?

Twice.

I never once got tased for it. In fact, the police and I had a nice discussion about rights, and I got off without a ticket once. the second time the officer asked for permission to search my car, and tried to make me wait until a k9 unit showed up. I drove off after 20 minutes without being searched.

 

[oldsalt]

Oh lord. Talk about your non-sequiturs.

Here's a major difference, the Freedom Riders did exactly what the cops told them to do. They made the police look stupid by complying with them.

That's a far cry from a lone, belligerent driver "without a cause".

They also broke the law, this guy did not.

In your opinion...... You don't have fiat on the issue of "right and wrong".

Yet you do?

Again, this guy could have made a constitutional argument without provoking a police officer.

Is it illegal to provoke a police officer? Absolutely not. Does it give the police a reason to suspect you might be altered or possibly dangerous? Absolutely.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently ruled that people do not have the right to resist the police when they are wrong because they can challenge them in court later and it might end up escalating in violence and someone getting hurt. That means they agree with you.

The Attorney General of that state filed a brief asking them to overturn that decision. Why should people who are going about their business have to put up with the police doing whatever they want simply because it might provoke them to be challenged? Until you can answer that in a way that does not lead to the police having excess power and taking us another step down the road to a police state you are wrong.

Until you can answer how a 'get back in your vehicle', which is protocol in most jurisdictions, is use of excessive force, you are wrong. At which point, the cop was thinking, this guy will not listen to me......Look, the cop didn't start out with a 'lay on your back and do as the good cop tells you' command. Your flower child argument has criminals everywhere grinning.

 

[MikeK]

The Indiana Supreme Court recently ruled that people do not have the right to resist the police when they are wrong because they can challenge them in court later and it might end up escalating in violence and someone getting hurt. That means they agree with you.

The Attorney General of that state filed a brief asking them to overturn that decision. Why should people who are going about their business have to put up with the police doing whatever they want simply because it might provoke them to be challenged? Until you can answer that in a way that does not lead to the police having excess power and taking us another step down the road to a police state you are wrong.

I agree.

That Indiana SC ruling is one more step in the direction of the American police state. But it conforms with the reasoning of the Type-A personality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So it is a crime for your license plate to be crooked?

I didn't even know you could get a ticket for it. My guess is it was an excuse to stop him and find out if the car was stolen.

A ticket could be issued but it would be dismissed in court (as was the ticket I got long ago for a burned out headlight).

As for the reason for stopping him, too few Americans are aware of an important consideration in the matter of car stops. One of the most insidious components of the War On Drugs are the subsidies handed out to civilian police departments whose performance statistics satisfy a minimum requirement of anti-drug activity (arrests). In fact, the S.W.A.T. activities of most police departments, including the paramilitary weapons, gear and clothing are included in the subsidies.

Because the vast majority of drug arrests are facilitated by car stops the police have developed profiles upon which their stops are selected. These profiles are based on statistics that reveal consistent factors in car stops which have resulted in past drug arrests. Some of these factors are an older, shabby car with a younger driver, moving suspiciously within the speed limit. In some places a Black driver rates high as a profile factor.

The police have learned that stopping cars which fit the profile increase their chances of making a "drug collar" and because of the federal subsidy the pressure is on to make those arrests. So some cops will look for any reason to stop a profiled car while others will invent a reason (speeding, etc). Anyone who doubts what I'm saying here need only watch a few (educational) episodes of the tv documentary, COPS, in which the process is seen time and time again.

There is that too,

I once got stopped for a burned out headlight twice in one night. I didn't get a ticket the second time because I just handed the officer my license and the first ticket. He went back to his car and checked whatever they check and told me to get it fixed ASAP. Shortest traffic stop I ever had.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh lord. Talk about your non-sequiturs.

Here's a major difference, the Freedom Riders did exactly what the cops told them to do. They made the police look stupid by complying with them.

That's a far cry from a lone, belligerent driver "without a cause".

They also broke the law, this guy did not.



Yet you do?

Again, this guy could have made a constitutional argument without provoking a police officer.

Is it illegal to provoke a police officer? Absolutely not. Does it give the police a reason to suspect you might be altered or possibly dangerous? Absolutely.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently ruled that people do not have the right to resist the police when they are wrong because they can challenge them in court later and it might end up escalating in violence and someone getting hurt. That means they agree with you.

The Attorney General of that state filed a brief asking them to overturn that decision. Why should people who are going about their business have to put up with the police doing whatever they want simply because it might provoke them to be challenged? Until you can answer that in a way that does not lead to the police having excess power and taking us another step down the road to a police state you are wrong.

Until you can answer how a 'get back in your vehicle', which is protocol in most jurisdictions, is use of excessive force, you are wrong. At which point, the cop was thinking, this guy will not listen to me......Look, the cop didn't start out with a 'lay on your back and do as the good cop tells you' command. Your flower child argument has criminals everywhere grinning.

Never said it was.

Nice strawman though.

 

[Sunshine]

Oh lord. Talk about your non-sequiturs.

Here's a major difference, the Freedom Riders did exactly what the cops told them to do. They made the police look stupid by complying with them.

That's a far cry from a lone, belligerent driver "without a cause".

They also broke the law, this guy did not.

In your opinion...... You don't have fiat on the issue of "right and wrong".

Yet you do?

Again, this guy could have made a constitutional argument without provoking a police officer.

Is it illegal to provoke a police officer? Absolutely not. Does it give the police a reason to suspect you might be altered or possibly dangerous? Absolutely.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently ruled that people do not have the right to resist the police when they are wrong because they can challenge them in court later and it might end up escalating in violence and someone getting hurt. That means they agree with you.

The Attorney General of that state filed a brief asking them to overturn that decision. Why should people who are going about their business have to put up with the police doing whatever they want simply because it might provoke them to be challenged? Until you can answer that in a way that does not lead to the police having excess power and taking us another step down the road to a police state you are wrong.

Do you have a link to that case? I find it very difficult to believe that the courts would take a position that would likely overload it, as there are so many instances in which right and wrong never entered the picture, only whether the courts would be able to handle the influx. Also, getting access to the court system is not all that easy for a poor person. Many people would not be able to go out and hire a lawyer to pursue an issue like this. And even thought many cases are taken on contingency, plaintiffs still have to pay the expenses of their lawsuit.

 

[geauxtohell]

I didn't even know you could get a ticket for it. My guess is it was an excuse to stop him and find out if the car was stolen.

A ticket could be issued but it would be dismissed in court (as was the ticket I got long ago for a burned out headlight).

As for the reason for stopping him, too few Americans are aware of an important consideration in the matter of car stops. One of the most insidious components of the War On Drugs are the subsidies handed out to civilian police departments whose performance statistics satisfy a minimum requirement of anti-drug activity (arrests). In fact, the S.W.A.T. activities of most police departments, including the paramilitary weapons, gear and clothing are included in the subsidies.

Because the vast majority of drug arrests are facilitated by car stops the police have developed profiles upon which their stops are selected. These profiles are based on statistics that reveal consistent factors in car stops which have resulted in past drug arrests. Some of these factors are an older, shabby car with a younger driver, moving suspiciously within the speed limit. In some places a Black driver rates high as a profile factor.

The police have learned that stopping cars which fit the profile increase their chances of making a "drug collar" and because of the federal subsidy the pressure is on to make those arrests. So some cops will look for any reason to stop a profiled car while others will invent a reason (speeding, etc). Anyone who doubts what I'm saying here need only watch a few (educational) episodes of the tv documentary, COPS, in which the process is seen time and time again.

There is that too,

I once got stopped for a burned out headlight twice in one night. I didn't get a ticket the second time because I just handed the officer my license and the first ticket. He went back to his car and checked whatever they check and told me to get it fixed ASAP. Shortest traffic stop I ever had.

And that is totally reasonable. Only a total asshole would ticket you twice on the same night for the same offense (for a benign offense like that).

 

[Sunshine]

Once I inadvertently let my car tags expire. I got stopped and was given a ticket which, when I got them renewed, would automatically be dismisssed. About a week later, on the way to the courthouse, I was stopped again by a different officer for my expired tags. The officer asked me why I had waited and I told him that I am a nurse and can't just run out at will to go to the courthouse and given that it is only open when I am working I had to wait until I could request some time off. I told him I was on my way to the courthouse at that red hot minute, and I was about 2 blocks away. He acted skeptical. I told him, 'follow me, I won't be offended.' Well, he didn't follow me, I did get my tags, and I didn't get tazed.

Does anyone on here see how this scenario could have escalated? I certainly do. Of course, generally cops like nurses.

 

[oldsalt]

They also broke the law, this guy did not.



Yet you do?



The Indiana Supreme Court recently ruled that people do not have the right to resist the police when they are wrong because they can challenge them in court later and it might end up escalating in violence and someone getting hurt. That means they agree with you.

The Attorney General of that state filed a brief asking them to overturn that decision. Why should people who are going about their business have to put up with the police doing whatever they want simply because it might provoke them to be challenged? Until you can answer that in a way that does not lead to the police having excess power and taking us another step down the road to a police state you are wrong.

Until you can answer how a 'get back in your vehicle', which is protocol in most jurisdictions, is use of excessive force, you are wrong. At which point, the cop was thinking, this guy will not listen to me......Look, the cop didn't start out with a 'lay on your back and do as the good cop tells you' command. Your flower child argument has criminals everywhere grinning.

Never said it was.

Nice strawman though.

Then you should read what you post. you did.

 

[oldsalt]

Once I inadvertently let my car tags expire. I got stopped and was given a ticket which, when I got them renewed, would automatically be dismisssed. About a week later, on the way to the courthouse, I was stopped again by a different officer for my expired tags. The officer asked me why I had waited and I told him that I am a nurse and can't just run out at will to go to the courthouse and given that it is only open when I am working I had to wait until I could request some time off. I told him I was on my way to the courthouse at that red hot minute, and I was about 2 blocks away. He acted skeptical. I told him, 'follow me, I won't be offended.' Well, he didn't follow me, I did get my tags, and I didn't get tazed.

Does anyone on here see how this scenario could have escalated? I certainly do. Of course, generally cops like nurses.

Like shakin' yer ass, do ya?

 

[Sunshine]

Once I inadvertently let my car tags expire. I got stopped and was given a ticket which, when I got them renewed, would automatically be dismisssed. About a week later, on the way to the courthouse, I was stopped again by a different officer for my expired tags. The officer asked me why I had waited and I told him that I am a nurse and can't just run out at will to go to the courthouse and given that it is only open when I am working I had to wait until I could request some time off. I told him I was on my way to the courthouse at that red hot minute, and I was about 2 blocks away. He acted skeptical. I told him, 'follow me, I won't be offended.' Well, he didn't follow me, I did get my tags, and I didn't get tazed.

Does anyone on here see how this scenario could have escalated? I certainly do. Of course, generally cops like nurses.

Like shakin' yer ass, do ya?

Yeah. Too bad you are unable to appreciate a good thing.

 

[oldsalt]

Once I inadvertently let my car tags expire. I got stopped and was given a ticket which, when I got them renewed, would automatically be dismisssed. About a week later, on the way to the courthouse, I was stopped again by a different officer for my expired tags. The officer asked me why I had waited and I told him that I am a nurse and can't just run out at will to go to the courthouse and given that it is only open when I am working I had to wait until I could request some time off. I told him I was on my way to the courthouse at that red hot minute, and I was about 2 blocks away. He acted skeptical. I told him, 'follow me, I won't be offended.' Well, he didn't follow me, I did get my tags, and I didn't get tazed.

Does anyone on here see how this scenario could have escalated? I certainly do. Of course, generally cops like nurses.

Like shakin' yer ass, do ya?

Yeah. Too bad you are unable to appreciate a good thing.

Appreciate? I think Japan has suffered enough. STOP.

 

[MikeK]

The point of the stop, and the validity of the stop, became moot when this driver decided to act in a hostile manner to a police officer.

First, being stopped by police while driving is an aggressive action which must be justified. Do you think a crooked front license plate, which poses no threat to life or property, is sufficient cause for a police officer working alone to stop a car on a quiet road at night?

It could have been justified if the driver would have given the officer a chance to do so. The driver chose to provoke the situation and act in a reckless manner that gave the police officer reason to suspect he was a threat.

Unless you think it's reasonable to approach someone with a loaded weapon and yell "are you going to shoot me?"

I think it's absurd to pull someone over for a crooked license plate. That could have been addressed properly if the driver had not acted in a bizarre manner. The second the motorist got out of the car, it was about much more than a crooked license plate.

Next, what is hostile about demanding to know why a police officer has taken the aggressive action of stopping you? Hostile is a flexible word. It does not presumptively suggest menace or threat, whereas drawing and aiming a pistol is distinctly menacing and threatening as well as extremely hostile.

Please. Sitting in your car and asking why you were pulled over is not hostile. Getting out of your care, refusing to comply with an officers commands for three solid minutes, walking up to a person pointing a loaded weapon at you and asking "are you going to shoot me?" is hostile.

What sane person would do that? If I were an officer, I would seriously begin to question the mental status of the person in the car. He didn't have to get out of his vehicle to be a civil libertarian.

Maybe you might understand Type-B reasoning if it's presented to you in abstract form, such as:

If someday you are driving around the vicinity of Bountiful, Utah, with a crooked front license plate or some other equally insignificant irregularity, it is extremely unlikely that you will be inconvenienced by police pulling you over. And for that small but very real increase in the level of your freedom from government oppression you have Bruce Harper to thank. Without such small, occasional and successful "push-back" incidents to remind the police they are servants rather than masters the drift toward fascism would be accelerated.

While you might question Bruce Harper's mental status the simple fact is it is opposite of yours -- and the federal court agreed with him. Not you. Which is the bottom line.

 

[Tank]

By the way, I was once told by a lawyer that I should always turn off the engine, get out of the car, lock it, and put my keys on the roof whenever a police officer pulls me over for anything. He told me this would be a direct assertion of my right to refuse to allow the police to violate my 4th Amendment rights and search my car in the guise of a traffic stop. When did the police get the right to demand I not follow the advice of my attorney?

Well you just want to be a dick.

I bet you harass girl scouts for selling cookies at you're door too.

 

[oldsalt]

First, being stopped by police while driving is an aggressive action which must be justified. Do you think a crooked front license plate, which poses no threat to life or property, is sufficient cause for a police officer working alone to stop a car on a quiet road at night?

It could have been justified if the driver would have given the officer a chance to do so. The driver chose to provoke the situation and act in a reckless manner that gave the police officer reason to suspect he was a threat.

Unless you think it's reasonable to approach someone with a loaded weapon and yell "are you going to shoot me?"

I think it's absurd to pull someone over for a crooked license plate. That could have been addressed properly if the driver had not acted in a bizarre manner. The second the motorist got out of the car, it was about much more than a crooked license plate.

Next, what is hostile about demanding to know why a police officer has taken the aggressive action of stopping you? Hostile is a flexible word. It does not presumptively suggest menace or threat, whereas drawing and aiming a pistol is distinctly menacing and threatening as well as extremely hostile.

Please. Sitting in your car and asking why you were pulled over is not hostile. Getting out of your care, refusing to comply with an officers commands for three solid minutes, walking up to a person pointing a loaded weapon at you and asking "are you going to shoot me?" is hostile.

What sane person would do that? If I were an officer, I would seriously begin to question the mental status of the person in the car. He didn't have to get out of his vehicle to be a civil libertarian.

Maybe you might understand Type-B reasoning if it's presented to you in abstract form, such as:

If someday you are driving around the vicinity of Bountiful, Utah, with a crooked front license plate or some other equally insignificant irregularity, it is extremely unlikely that you will be inconvenienced by police pulling you over. And for that small but very real increase in the level of your freedom from government oppression you have Bruce Harper to thank. Without such small, occasional and successful "push-back" incidents to remind the police they are servants rather than masters the drift toward fascism would be accelerated.

While you might question Bruce Harper's mental status the simple fact is it is opposite of yours -- and the federal court agreed with him. Not you. Which is the bottom line.

Actually, the bottom line is..ASShole gets tazed. Get it........Yet?

 

[geauxtohell]

[...]

My wife is an attorney. She watched the video and basically thought the cop had justification to taze him the second he stuck his hands in his pocket.

[...]

It's a good thing the subject driver didn't have your wife as his lawyer in the federal litigation he prevailed in. But I'm sure you will come up with some reason why that is not relevant.

For your information there are many things police routinely do which would be found unacceptable, even illegal, in court.

He didn't prevail in court. They settled out of court. Let's see what happens in his suit against the county before you claim the driver has been vindicated. It's not relevant because you obviously don't understand basic civil procedure. I don't claim that the police always act properly. I just don't think they erred on this one.

 

[geauxtohell]

All he had to do was answer the question.

As someone noted, answering the question would have set the driver up for what he wanted, a larger debate and confrontation. The police officer was trying to control the situation. He no reason to suspect that this guy was a regular asshole as opposed to a potentially altered or dangerous person.

Again, do you find the actions of a person that walks up to a loaded gun and says "what are you going to do, shot me?" reasonable? Would you do that?

Have I ever followed that advice?

Twice.

I never once got tased for it. In fact, the police and I had a nice discussion about rights, and I got off without a ticket once. the second time the officer asked for permission to search my car, and tried to make me wait until a k9 unit showed up. I drove off after 20 minutes without being searched.

If you got tazed for that, I would be on board with "police brutality". You can look at my earlier video which clearly shows brutality from a compliant driver.

Thanks for sharing. I was more interested. I always like the "am I being detained?" tact for traffic stops. By my rudimentary understanding of the law, without having probable cause or reasonable suspicion, a cop can't make you wait for a K-9 unit.

Again, you handled what you perceived to be improper stops in a much better and more respectable manner than this guy. I would never support a cop for tasing a respectful and calm citizen who was questioning them.

This is not an analogous situation.