I didn’t say that. I said “Millions of police/citizen contact every day and rarely does something happen. And when it does it almost always is initiated by the citizen.”
Meaning when force is used it’s in response to something the subject did. Either a use of or threat of force against an officer or refusal to comply with a lawful order or arrest.
Your contention that there is an epidemic of unjustified use of force is unsubstantiated and ridiculous.
No, a private company in Arizona with an army of bill collectors I have no contract with does not have any legal power over me. The St. Louis Municipal Police do.
You do understand that actual police and judges don’t issue red light camera tickets right? And that they are run by a private company somewhere that you can and really should ignore? With no legal repercussions at all?
They have less power over me than a mall cop, because a mall cop can legally ask me to leave the mall. A camera graft firm doesn’t even have that. They can’t even scowl at me because they’re 3000 miles away so I won’t see them.
You do understand that what you wrote doesn’t apply in most jurisdiction that use red light cameras?
Yes, and once again, WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT FORCE IS ALMOST ALWAYS A RESPONSE TO SOMETHING THE CITIZEN DID? Show me the stats. Show me anything that backs up your claim beyond the cops, who a healthy percentage of people don’t trust, justifying whatever they did after the fact? And I do consider it an epidemic of police malfeasance when nearly half the population does not trust them to do their job fairly.
First, your above statement is false in most jurisdictions and it would almost certainly be false if such enforcement measures became the primary means of enforcing traffic laws nationwide.
There is one violation where I agree with the OP. Fire engines and ambulances should have cameras in front and anyone that impedes them or turns in front of them can be ticketed.
I see many problems with this. If an officer is involved enough to be engaged in photojournalism of the event, he may as well stop the driver and be able to definitively identify him/her and potentially uncover other issues like drunk driving or maybe the car having just been stolen. Yes, it’s a danger to the officer, but that’s their job – and if traffic stops are so damn hazardous in America, then maybe someone should be looking at the root cause (hint: see the gun thread).
I would also worry about the converse argument – various automated technologies making this so easy for the officer to do that money-hungry jurisdictions start a blizzard of indiscriminate minor traffic citations coming down on the citizenry like driven snow.
And, notwithstanding the claim for how well this works in the UK, there are constitutional issues with identifying the actual driver, so that as already mentioned, it’s really the registered owner that gets charged, and this leads to serious limitations with the charge. Specifically, here in Ontario, with respect to offenses recorded by red-light cameras, the registered owner gets to pay the fine and can take it up for financial restitution with whoever he regards as responsible, but no one gets demerits on his driving record, because legally and constitutionally the driver has not been identified. So if you have lots of money, or your rent your car out to those who do, no problem.
It was the same way with the much-hated and now abandoned photo radar system for speeding. It was generally regarded as a cash cow that did absolutely nothing for traffic safety. One of the local writers of a car column here at the time told of how he stopped behind one of these cops operating a photo radar system and told him of a dangerous and possibly drunk driver he had just seen nearby. The officer basically told him to stop bothering him and couldn’t he see he was busy? Busy taking pictures, while the drunk or whoever it was went weaving cheerfully on his way.
Personally I think red light cameras, unlike this fiasco, are an example of a good application of technology, because they constantly monitor busy intersections with a history of traffic accidents, and do so at essentially zero cost. But they are just one small tool in a program of traffic law enforcement and accident prevention, most of which involves direct police intervention, fact discovery, and discretionary judgment.
No, YOU show me the stats where it isn’t a reactionary action on behalf of an officer involved.
And your insistence that there is an epidemic of police misconduct because of opinion polls (which you have not provided a single cite for, BTW. So I’m calling b:dubious:llshit) is irrelevant. Just because a nation of burger flippers think something doesn’t make it so.
WAG on the numbers, but 99 out of 100 times a cop does something that ends up in front of a grand jury your 50% who end up on that jury exonerate him. How do you account for that? Or did “they” get to “them” too?
I think the point is, that until we have some source of unbiased data, there’s no way to reach a conclusion either way. Making assumptions here doesn’t help anyone. We have evidence of cops and civilians both acting poorly, and no way to calculate the percentages.
Well, no, that’s not how GD works. You made a claim, now you need to either back it up or retract it. Unfortunately for you, the angry cop routine doesn’t work on the internet.
Here you go:
In case you don’t want to do the math, that means 47% of people do not trust the police to be fair and just. Here are some more polls that general back up the claim that people do not trust cops or the system:
And for an example of what happens when people don’t trust the police.
So yeah, I think there is an epidemic and a huge issue when cops are getting shot in broad daylight and no one is helping because they are either afraid the cops cannot protect them, hate cops, or any number of other reasons that stem from a trust gap.
Hilarious. Eight percent of PDs require a college education and only 83% of PDs require a HS diploma. The idea that cops, who by and large are among the least educated, modestly paid, and lowest regarded workers out there, should be looking down on half the public by equating them to “burger flippers” is laughable and just demonstrates and completely distorted sense of reality. No sir, half the public doesn’t “flip burgers”, and if your contempt for half of the public is as obvious to the people you interact with om a daily basis, it’s not wonder they dislike cops.
Most crimes of any sort do not end up in a grand jury. You should be looking at complaints against cops, and only using that as a reference point given vast under-reporting and retaliatory claims. But thanks against for failing yet anther test in basic logic. I will say though that I commend you for characterizing you clearly bogus claim as a WAG now.
Still irrelevant. An opinion poll doesn’t prove that there is a problem within the operations of law enforcement. Most of what people think they know about police work they learned from Law & Order and most of it is wrong. Like I posted before, if the sheep get their way they will eventually start whining about an increase in violent criminals on the street. They want to feel safe in their daily lives but their visions of how that safety is achieved is childish. The OP contends that there is a major epidemic of innocent people being assaulted by police. There isn’t.
My state requires both. So what? It hasn’t improved anything for anybody.
Actually, it’s not. As public servants, the public’s opinion matters a great deal. Furthermore, it illustrates there is a problem even more than the central casting belligerent and incoherent cop routine you are putting on. I don’t think any number of polls could better demonstrate the fact that people, rightly IMO, don’t trust most cops any more than you conduct, illogic, and condescension. A nation of burger flippers? Please keep it coming.
Again, cite? You are basing this on absolutely nothing. We are not debating departmental procedures for arraignments or something that would even require specialized knowledge or experience. This is a basic issue of whether people feel cops can be trusted to administer justice fairly, not lie, or target minorities. The opinion of cops is pretty poor in every respect for good reason.
First, the OP didn’t say there was an epidemic of police assaults. S/he said:
And s/he is right for a number of reasons.
Actually, if you read the link, you would see that it has improved things as more educated cops use violence less often and conduct themselves in a more professional manner. Those are two reasons I’d imagine your state requires such things.
As far as why it’s germane to the discussion, it’s mostly because your hubristic statements about the nation as a whole are particularly galling coming from a guy whose job sometimes doesn’t even require a high school diploma. Not even mentioning the fact that being a burger flipper doesn’t make your opinion invalid. I just noted it point out how unwarranted and disgusting your comment was given your relatively low vantage point. Your job sometimes even bars people with too high an IQ because police work might become too boring for smart people.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read this week. There are a lot of reasons people quit, but boredom usually isn’t one of them that I’ve heard. After I retired I took a gig with another agency because I missed the action. And I scored 121 on the IQ section of the psyche assessment for the job I have now, just shy of what the guy in your cite scored.
I have 3 degrees including a Masters and I can’t say they really matter much. There’s a job to be done and a certain way to do it. I got my degrees because my employer encouraged it and paid for most of it.
In fact, I find a lot of the new recruits who all have degrees irritating. They over-think too many things.
And yet the article, police administrators and the courts disagree with your assessment. Do you ever tire of just being utterly wrong?
But I guess if your educated applicants are overthinking things, maybe you could hire more burger flippers; or do not immediately swallow all the authoritarian nonsense you spew wholesale?
One isolated area of the country and you take that as the norm? Not around here chief. At one time MPD had a patrolman who had a PHD. Also not the norm, BTW.
Please point out where I said it was the norm? Since I didn’t I will just chalk it up as another reactionary, inaccurate statement by you due to your inability to read carefully. I only mentioned it to point out how the average cop calling half the country burger flippers is hilarious given the requirements of their job.
Traffic stops have become one of the main crimefighting tools in many departments’ arsenals for reasons that have nothing to do with traffic violations. Proposing a reform that addresses traffic violations misses the whole context of modern policing.
Under the law as shaped by the Supreme Court to enable the drug war, pretty much any driver can be stopped for any reason, legitimate or nefarious. If a cop doesn’t like the look of a black guy driving a fancy car, he can stop him. He has to make up a reason, naturally. But if you follow a car for a half-mile, you’re very likely to find that one of the thousands of car-related laws has been violated. Maybe they didn’t signal a full 100 ft. before a turn, say. And he doesn’t even have to lie about his real motivation so long as there is a trivial traffic violation.
Once you get the car stopped, you then get a chance to run the driver for warrants. Lots of people fail to pay their fines and costs, for example. Prime targets. You get a chance to look around in the car. If you want, you can pull the occupants out and frisk them. Maybe you’ll ask about drug use and get yourself probable cause of some pot in the car. Or you can ask for consent to search. Or if that doesn’t work, you can choose to make an arrest, and then you get a golden ticket to search the person and the passenger compartment of the car.
Police like the unbridled discretion. It’s the same reason they like stop-and-frisk. It lets them run with their hunches, even though the data shows their hunches are inaccurate and racist. The problem has very little to do with efficient ways of enforcing traffic laws.
I think people here get what you are saying. They just don’t think the ends justify the means with regard to traffic stops, and more broadly, community (over)policing, the drug war, etc. The point is that there is more than one was to police a community.
I think you’ve misread me. The unbridled discretion at the core of the current traffic stop practice is a big part of why we have an extremely racist criminal justice system.
My point was that offering a technological solution misses the point. Police want to conduct the traffic stops for reasons having nothing to do with traffic law.
I see. I am not sure I would completely agree with that, but I see your point.
If you don’t why did you use a cite inferring that you think it is?
The fact remains there is not an epidemic of unjustified use of police force. A decade from now nothing significant will have changed in the policies and operations of most law enforcement agencies because little to no change is needed. Officers who use unjustified force are dealt with, and the very idea that cops don’t pull people over for minor infractions is laughable at best, and dangerous to public safety if implemented. The OP is trying to present a problem that doesn’t really exist.