Since when can cops detain motorists for obeying the law ?

[win912]

http://www.killsometime.com/flash/701

[Twinsen]

I watched it, I dunno how "sudden" that stop was though. Maybe if he didn't know the intersection I can see that being my same reaction. Well, that's a lie. I'd fly right past an inoperable light, because I didn't know it was the law to stop at them. After today, that'd be my reaction.

As for how the cop acted. Oh well? I don't see where in any law book a cop has to suck your dick and be polite. Same story the other way. So you're dicks to each other. Not much of a story here.

Also the cop is driving a RWD Ford and you're driving a FWD Honda. So I'm on the cop's side if a fight breaks out.

Guess I missed it, what happened to Nighthawk?

No one knows, he just stopped posting one day after I posted his real name.

Oh, that's what happened. At least that question is answered. I don't care who he is, I was just wondering what happened.


ETA again: Damnit, I watched the whole video. It was like watching two people fight over a single drop of spilled milk. I want my 10 minutes back.

[joshrunkle35]

Cops need to quit posturing. It's ridiculous. Walk away or destroy them, otherwise you'll be the one who gets destroyed.

[doubloon]

...
ETA again: Damnit, I watched the whole video. It was like watching two people fight over a single drop of spilled milk. I want my 10 minutes back.

I tried to summarize the video for you earlier.

ETA: Looked at the video, not an abrupt stop, not a long stop, the van driver was caught unawares and swerved around him, some of the plastic from the bags was still hanging on the left light so clearly bags were there before and since they've been there for 9 years the officer didn't notice them missing and stopped Lenny for reasonable cause ... then Lenny made an comment about taking a picture which put the officer on the defensive ... a well orchestrated con by Lenny

The officer was professional and polite until Lenny started being antagonistic

then ...

[wyoguy]

+1



WYOGUY

[Libertarian_Geek]

Cops need to quit posturing. It's ridiculous.

This ^

Here in AL, after storms, the news and radio shows all remind drivers to treat malfunctioning traffic lights as four way stops. It's pretty hard to avoid hearing this. But yet, when the power goes out, good luck getting through a busy intersection with a malfunctioning traffic light. Why is it so? People aren't afraid of being ticketed for running a malfunctioning light because it's so rarely and inconsistently enforced.

Yes, this could have been avoided. Yes, kwikrnu was antagonistic.

But at the end of the day the cop should know the traffic laws and shouldn't try to make it up as he goes. You should not be able to "talk yourself into a ticket." You should be able to file a complaint (and even be upset while doing it) without fear of arrest. The police are bound to the same laws that we are if they weren't, then things would be real ugly.

I could take the easy road here, and point out that I agree with folks in that kwikrnu was baiting, antagonistic, argumentative and was possibly holding a grudge against law enforcement, but there's plenty here that have pointed that out already. Looking at this as objectively as I can, I see asshole vs assholes. Police that try to break free of the laws that govern all of us deserve being called out on it. Yes, it's a hard job for very little pay. But you can't make up your own rules, and you can't punish people just for being assholes. If you don't like what you do, change jobs.

So pass the popcorn.

[bakerjw]

I think that a simple question is in order. But it would require an honest answer and I don't feel that Kwik falls too far into that category. The question is....

Has Kwik ever NOT stopped at the non functioning light in question?

[Twinsen]

...
ETA again: Damnit, I watched the whole video. It was like watching two people fight over a single drop of spilled milk. I want my 10 minutes back.

I tried to summarize the video for you earlier.

ETA: Looked at the video, not an abrupt stop, not a long stop, the van driver was caught unawares and swerved around him, some of the plastic from the bags was still hanging on the left light so clearly bags were there before and since they've been there for 9 years the officer didn't notice them missing and stopped Lenny for reasonable cause ... then Lenny made an comment about taking a picture which put the officer on the defensive ... a well orchestrated con by Lenny

The officer was professional and polite until Lenny started being antagonistic

then ...

I really should have read your post. Thanks for trying to save me from this one. On defense of the cop, it really does take effort to not be an asshole when somebody is an asshole to you.

[doubloon]

... You should not be able to "talk yourself into a ticket." ...

I can agree with everything you said except this.

An officer in the field has and should have some discretionary latitude when it comes to ticketing.

Sticking with traffic stops as the topic. There are a lot of people out there who make honest mistakes when it comes to speed, turns, stops, etc. and one job of the officer is to secure the safety of the public not necessarily ticket the masses.

If an officer stops someone for actions that may endanger others around him then that officer should be able to exercise discretion based on the attitude of the person stopped. If that person is genuinely cooperative, remorseful and/or respectful then the officer should have the option to say "lesson learned" and not issue a ticket. If, on the other hand, the person stopped is dismissive, disrespectful, argumentative or generally a dick then the officer should exercise his option to write a ticket and let a judge sort it out.

I don't think writing a ticket at a stop should be mandatory for the officer. I think every traffic stop (except blatant recklessness like drag racing or 60mph in a school zone) should be approached by the officer with the goal in mind to raise the awareness of the person being stopped then turn them loose. For routine traffic stops an officer should not be walking into the situation having already decided to issue a ticket (unless he's below quota ).

Every officer/citizen encounter should start out with the goal of mediating peace/safety without writing a ticket and whether a ticket is written should depend entirely on the attitude of the citizen. I believe that's exactly what happened here and I believe Lenny actually did talk himself into a ticket and I believe if he goes to fight this in court with the same attitude he gave the officer he will get more of the same from the judge.

[Libertarian_Geek]

... You should not be able to "talk yourself into a ticket." ...

I can agree with everything you said except this.

An officer in the field has and should have some discretionary latitude when it comes to ticketing.

Sticking with traffic stops as the topic. There are a lot of people out there who make honest mistakes when it comes to speed, turns, stops, etc. and one job of the officer is to secure the safety of the public not necessarily ticket the masses.

If an officer stops someone for actions that may endanger others around him then that officer should be able to exercise discretion based on the attitude of the person stopped. If that person is genuinely cooperative, remorseful and/or respectful then the officer should have the option to say "lesson learned" and not issue a ticket. If, on the other hand, the person stopped is dismissive, disrespectful, argumentative or generally a dick then the officer should exercise his option to write a ticket and let a judge sort it out.

I don't think writing a ticket at a stop should be mandatory for the officer. I think every traffic stop (except blatant recklessness like drag racing or 60mph in a school zone) should be approached by the officer with the goal in mind to raise the awareness of the person being stopped then turn them loose. For routine traffic stops an officer should not be walking into the situation having already decided to issue a ticket (unless he's below quota ).

Every officer/citizen encounter should start out with the goal of mediating peace/safety without writing a ticket and whether a ticket is written should depend entirely on the attitude of the citizen. I believe that's exactly what happened here and I believe Lenny actually did talk himself into a ticket and I believe if he goes to fight this in court with the same attitude he gave the officer he will get more of the same from the judge.

I see your point and agree to a point. If the cop actually believed that 2 conditions were true:
1> that bags were over the traffic lights and
2> that the law wasn't to treat malfunctioning lights as all-way stops.
Then yes, you should be able to talk yourself into a ticket.

But I don't believe that the cop was confused about these points. If he ever believed that the lights were covered and that the law wasn't so, then he began to doubt that during the conversation.

It all fell apart when the cop lied about the condition of the traffic lights and the law. I have serious doubts that the cop didn't know the actual condition of the lights. Even if he didn't know, he argued as if he did know and that's lying too. (This is the first sign that the cop is lying for the sake of winning the argument. At this point, he's no longer doing his job, he's feeding his own ego and challenging the ego of the citizen. )

The cop fell into the trap of trying to win the argument instead of trying to resolve the issue. It showed when he changed his position from "bags were over the lights" to "that's not the law". He may have felt that he was loosing confidence in the first story due to the conviction of kwik's argument. So, he shifted into "that's not the law". Once it was said, it wasn't any better of a position for winning the argument either.

I also find it hard to believe that the cop doesn't know that the law is to treat malfunctioning lights as an all-way stop. Like I mentioned, in the south, it seems to be touted by the media everywhere when there are storms and on regular TV and radio traffic reports. He's trying to bluff in order to win the argument.

So I agree that if you've actually done something wrong, you should be able to talk yourself into a ticket that may have otherwise been overlooked. But if your only fault is being the biggest asshole that the law would allow(meaning: within the legal limits), then you should not be able to talk yourself into a ticket. If it's possible to talk yourself into a ticket without doing anything illegal, then it means police can cite and even arrest citizens for no reason, without any legal basis. They do not have that authority because citizens haven't given them that authority. And of course, we all know that all authority comes from the people, that's the very basis of American government.

[bakerjw]

A coworker of mine used to work as airport security. He had all of the rights and privileges of a full law enforcement officer. One of his normal jobs was to run radar on the roads leading around the airport. One day he clocked a guy doing 70 in a 30. The driver was obviously late for a flight. His first words as he got out of his car? "I suppose you're going to be a dick about this." He missed his flight and got a rather expensive ticket.

There are bound to be exceptions to the rule but I;ve found that if you treat officers in a decent manner then you'll oftentimes get a break.

[PTK]

That's been my experience, as well. Hell, I majorly fucked up and forgot to take my handgun off before heading into the post office. I was open carrying.

Sheriff here gave me a slap on the wrist and told me not to be talking on the damn phone when I should be double- and triple-checking that I have indeed disarmed. Good guy.

[Libertarian_Geek]

A coworker of mine used to work as airport security. He had all of the rights and privileges of a full law enforcement officer. One of his normal jobs was to run radar on the roads leading around the airport. One day he clocked a guy doing 70 in a 30. The driver was obviously late for a flight. His first words as he got out of his car? "I suppose you're going to be a dick about this." He missed his flight and got a rather expensive ticket.

There are bound to be exceptions to the rule but I;ve found that if you treat officers in a decent manner then you'll oftentimes get a break.

I get that. If you're breaking the law, then the cop has the authority to ticket you, or let you off with a warning.
If you're obeying the law, then the police don't have any authority to hold such a threat over your head. In reality, if you're being a law abiding asshole, they'll probably cite you with disturbing the peace, or generally make you have a bad day. It doesn't make it right.

Look at the crap going on in NY over the past few years. Quotas for stop and searches. Corruption at all levels. Cameras taken away from citizens without any legal authority. It takes hard work to avoid the human nature that gets us into these situations, but we can't afford to just take the easy road and say "he deserved what he got... he should have just bowed his head down and taken the warning." It's important that we don't accept even the slightest abuse of power as the norm. Otherwise, it'll keep creeping away from us and our rights will erode.

Admittedly, It probably be easier for me to argue this point if it were someone else in this situation other than Kwik.

[joshrunkle35]

Lee the ACTUAL law be the judge. Let officers enforce that law. Don't let officers be the law or the judge.

[doubloon]

...
But I don't believe that the cop was confused about these points. If he ever believed that the lights were covered and that the law wasn't so, then he began to doubt that during the conversation.
...

Quite possible, I think there's fault on both sides but in my heart I believe even if the officer had admitted his mistake Lenny would not have relented until he coerced the officer into "abuse" of his rights.

I concede your points are valid in any normal situation, I think we've reached some middle ground and believe the finer points of any disagreements that may be left are best sorted out over adult beverages, possibly with tobacco and firearms.

[Twinsen]

Admittedly, It probably be easier for me to argue this point if it were someone else in this situation other than Kwik.

It's like we're taking our libertarian final exam.


"So all that you just said you truely believe?"
Yes, sir!
"What about if this guy HERE is the defendant?"
Ughhh... ughh.... ughhh.... I... It depends on the....

[Libertarian_Geek]

...
But I don't believe that the cop was confused about these points. If he ever believed that the lights were covered and that the law wasn't so, then he began to doubt that during the conversation.
...

Quite possible, I think there's fault on both sides but in my heart I believe even if the officer had admitted his mistake Lenny would not have relented until he coerced the officer into "abuse" of his rights.

I concede your points are valid in any normal situation, I think we've reached some middle ground and believe the finer points of any disagreements that may be left are best sorted out over adult beverages, possibly with tobacco and firearms.

I agree.

[doubloon]

Admittedly, It probably be easier for me to argue this point if it were someone else in this situation other than Kwik.

It's like we're taking our libertarian final exam.


"So all that you just said you truely believe?"
Yes, sir!
"What about if this guy HERE is the defendant?"
Ughhh... ughh.... ughhh.... I... It depends on the....

Ahhhhh ... the sound of glass breaking, so familiar and so many bittersweet memories.

There was a time when I used to think anyone could understand anything they wanted to understand given a good enough teacher and the only reason some people didn't understand some things was because they were lazy or didn't care about the subject.

Somewhere in my 20's I left academia behind and started wading around in the real world until I eventually ran into someone to whom I was trying to explain the concept of vertical travel of objects in relation to acceleration and deceleration with and without propulsion and/or lift (just the basics, no wind, air density and definitely no spin drift). In short, the ballistic differences between a racquetball, a bullet and a bottle rocket.

About 20 or so minutes into the "discussion" the glass broke for me and my view on the world forever changed ... there are people out there who are simply incapable of grasping what others take for granted.

Since then glass has been shattering everywhere, even with my limited social skills (which I have so aptly and frequently demonstrated here at ST) I have always "known" on some level it's not smart to ignore or dismiss figures of authority while in their presence. A few properly timed "yessir"s and "nossir"s go a long way toward keeping a boot out of your ass.

The point of this ramble?

There are some people to whom equality just doesn't apply, sometimes it's by their own choice and sometimes not. As you point out, it irks the idealist in me but I've learned to live with it.

[wyoguy]

Admittedly, It probably be easier for me to argue this point if it were someone else in this situation other than Kwik.

It's like we're taking our libertarian final exam.


"So all that you just said you truely believe?"
Yes, sir!
"What about if this guy HERE is the defendant?"
Ughhh... ughh.... ughhh.... I... It depends on the....

Ahhhhh ... the sound of glass breaking, so familiar and so many bittersweet memories.

There was a time when I used to think anyone could understand anything they wanted to understand given a good enough teacher and the only reason some people didn't understand some things was because they were lazy or didn't care about the subject.

Somewhere in my 20's I left academia behind and started wading around in the real world until I eventually ran into someone to whom I was trying to explain the concept of vertical travel of objects in relation to acceleration and deceleration with and without propulsion and/or lift (just the basics, no wind, air density and definitely no spin drift). In short, the ballistic differences between a racquetball, a bullet and a bottle rocket.

About 20 or so minutes into the "discussion" the glass broke for me and my view on the world forever changed ... there are people out there who are simply incapable of grasping what others take for granted.

Since then glass has been shattering everywhere, even with my limited social skills (which I have so aptly and frequently demonstrated here at ST) I have always "known" on some level it's not smart to ignore or dismiss figures of authority while in their presence. A few properly timed "yessir"s and "nossir"s go a long way toward keeping a boot out of your ass.

The point of this ramble?

There are some people to whom equality just doesn't apply, sometimes it's by their own choice and sometimes not. As you point out, it irks the idealist in me but I've learned to live with it.

Exactly!

There are some people whose 'Elevator' just doesn't go to the Top Floor! No amount of explanations will change that...

In all the above discussions about POLICE vs. Defendant...
Just try substituting "Convicted Child Molester Living Across The Street From You And Your Family"...See If Your Viewpoint Changes Even A Little...

WYOGUY

[joshrunkle35]

Since then glass has been shattering everywhere, even with my limited social skills (which I have so aptly and frequently demonstrated here at ST) I have always "known" on some level it's not smart to ignore or dismiss figures of authority while in their presence. A few properly timed "yessir"s and "nossir"s go a long way toward keeping a boot out of your ass.

The point of this ramble?

There are some people to whom equality just doesn't apply, sometimes it's by their own choice and sometimes not. As you point out, it irks the idealist in me but I've learned to live with it.

Agreed.

But who should be held to a higher standard? The idiot or the officer?

Obviously he was asking for it. He wanted a fight, he had ample opportunity to keep his mouth shut, be the "bigger man" and walk away. He's an idiot.

But, again, I ask, at the end of the day, who should be held to a higher standard, the idiot or the officer?

Unfortunately the FOP has turned it into a JOB, when it should be something more in the realm of an honor or a higher calling.

[doubloon]

...
But who should be held to a higher standard? The idiot or the officer?
...

An excellent focus for a debate and a tough topic with no black and white answer in my mind.

Parents make mistakes handling their children, teachers make mistakes with students and officers make mistakes when dealing with citizens.

There's not a direct correlation between all three but definitely there is a thread of continuity where we are talking about a situation which involves the society accepted situational "norm" of one figure elevated to a position of authority over another.

When mistakes are made do we take the child away, fire the teacher, bust the cop ... the whole baby-with-the-bath-water conundrum.

When a parent spanks a child unjustly (not chronically/abusively) or a teacher's personal point of view lowers the value of an essay or a cop decides to give a guy a ticket because he's being an ass then how do we assess a real value for the harm?

I believe your point is valid and I also believe people in positions of authority should be held to a higher standard. To me where the discussion begins is the definition of that standard and to what extent we measure those held against it.

Just like athletes, celebrities and politicians some will excel and some will just show up but where's the cut line?

[Twinsen]

Well, in my defense, how was I supposed to know he just starts fights with cops? I mean I know he ran into confrontations with the gun stuff on purpose. I understand that cops don't know every law, so I'd figure if I did those same things, the same would eventually happen to me. And I'd even support people doing it. It's how every gun law has been handled. Somebody goes to the line or over it and then fights in court for all our rights. But this isn't like that. This is a traffic stop. Oh well. I guess there's no way to know how much he pissed off that CLEO that was gonna sign his stuff. I mean, I know a person could piss off a dirty cop without even being a jerk. But I'm now guessing that that wasn't the case.

[doubloon]

Well, in my defense, how was I supposed to know he just starts fights with cops? ...

Eh?

I'm not aware of anything you have to defend ... in this thread.

This thread has two valid sub-threads IMO. What would sane people do and WWTFTD.

[Twinsen]

No, I won't accept that. We have to fight about this. I bought a new purse just for this.

[doubloon]

You asked for it!