Indeed traffic stops are dangerous. So which laws should we actually enforce then?
No. Because I know under the current law that they will chase me with everything they have and I will probably get into a terrible wreck. Now, as long as I speed away (I can’t just keep going the speed limit or they will follow me home) then I will likely be just fine.
A piece of mail?!? I didn’t stop for a police car, but I will surely show up for a ticket that was mailed to me? And if I don’t show up?
The second part is hyperbole. Have you ever been pulled over by the police? Was it treated as a potential SWAT situation?
Exactly. I’ve been over here in Ireland for over 15 years now, and in all that time, the only two speeding tickets I got involved no direct human interaction whatsoever. We have speed vans here.
They also don’t do traffic stops for mundane record-keeping bullshit, either. The only two traffic stops I’ve had here were when 1) a cop passed me and saw me talking on my mobile phone, and 2) another driver complained that I was driving “recklessly” (I wasn’t, but whatever) and called in to the police with my vehicle description.
There’s none of that low-level harassment that everyone in America just takes for normal, where you have to be concerned if you pass a police car on the side of the road or see one in your rear-view mirror. Cops here don’t just latch on to passing motorists for the hell of it. Probably has something to do with them not seeing us as meal tickets…
Sure it is an arbitrary limit, but we have those all of the time for enforceability purposes. We can’t have minimum ages for tobacco, alcohol, guns, driving, etc.? We just take each case on the merits and determine if the individual is old enough or mature enough? No BAC limits or tax rates? Just try not to be too drunk or pay us what you think you should?
You absolutely do need to pull people over to enforce speeding laws if the object is road safety and not revenue generation. If you don’t pull someone over and cite the registered owner, you might get paid, but don’t you want to know if the unsafe driver is the registered owner, her husband, her brother, or her 16 year old child?
ETA: Also the officer can assess the situation and determine if a warning or a ticket is appropriate and perhaps there is an emergency situation which would excuse the violation.
Laws that actually protect the general safety of other drivers.
If someone is driving 15, even 20 over on a deserted stretch of road, big deal. If you want to send them a ticket, go for it.
If someone is weaving all over the road, or driving the wrong way on the interstate, or is speeding excessively relative to the flow of traffic, then that danger should be addressed.
But we are not talking about current law, we are talking about changing the law.
All the cop is generally going to give you is a slip of paper telling you to show up, so yeah. Most of the time, you don’t even need to show up, just send a check.
We can have different levels of escalation to get compliance before we have to resort to force. We should exhaust those, rather than immediately start threatening them with torture or death.
Not in a long time. I’m a good driver, I keep my tags up to date… oh, and I’m white.
When I was younger, I drove a bit too fast from time to time, and did get pulled over a bit frequently. The cops were assholes.
That’s what we are talking about here. Cops don’t know what they are getting into, so they have to treat every traffic stop as though it was a danger to their lives. They need to be ready to shoot before you can.
While it’s been a while since I’ve been pulled over, I’ve had friends who have. It’s not infrequent that they have two cops, one approaches, and the other stays behind the car with his gun drawn.
Exactly, you have those limits so that you can enforce those arbitrary limits. As I said, I’ve not been pulled over in a while, let me think… 2007, I think. I regularly drive 5-10 over the limit. It’s not like the enforcement of these arbitrary limits isn’t arbitrary in and of itself.
I’ve actually thought that such things were kinda silly too. I was smoking at 14, drinking at 16. I was shooting rifles at 12. I was driving (with close supervision on very unpopulated roads), at 13.
BAC is a bit arbitrary as well. One person can function just fine at a 1.4, others are falling down at a .06.
That’s a weird one to put in there. How much money you make is actually something that can be quantified, unlike most of your other examples.
Whoever gets the fine will know. And if it wasn’t them, then they will make sure that the person who was driving will pay for it, one way or the other.
I agree that arbitrary limits are harsh and sometimes unfair, but in a diverse society with many different people, how else do you do it? Let’s just take the drinking age as an example. We generally agree that adults should be able to consume alcohol but that children should not because children are mostly too immature to handle the consequences of it. I say mostly, because I’m sure that there are 14 year olds who can do it and many, many adults who cannot do it.
So in order to enforce the “adults allowed, children not” we pick an age. We could say 16, 18, 21, or 25 if we wanted, but we have picked 21. You think that is unfair and arbitrary and it is (20 years, 11 months, 29 days is illegal, but the next day the person magically became responsible? Silliness indeed).
But what is the alternative? A cop finds a bunch of fifteen to nineteen year olds drinking in a front yard. Is the officer to conduct extensive interviews with friends, family, school teachers, counselors, etc. and determine that these three are mature enough to handle alcohol, but those two are not? It is simply impossible for a society to enforce it, and it fails to put a person on notice as to his prohibited conduct. If I am 19 and think I am pretty mature, so I drink, maybe others don’t think so? An arbitrary limit stops that. I know that if I drink before age 21, I am exposing myself to criminal penalties.
As far as family members, I find it difficult to believe that most people will rat out family members in traffic court. If my brother borrowed my car and got a camera ticket, I’ll probably ask him to pay, but won’t change the names on the documents. And it works the other way. I’m one ticket away from a license suspension, so I have my wife take the heat for this latest one.
What?!? Maybe a police officer can chime in here, but where is the immediate threat of “torture or death” in the enforcement of traffic laws? That is extreme hyperbole.
If the guy was actually drawing a gun, in the majority of cases I think he’d drive away. If it was a wallet or a cellphone, everyone can recalibrate and nobody is dead.
In what I think would be the very rare case where the driver is intent on killing the cop and gets out of the car to pursue him, well then of course the cop will be pulling his weapon and returning fire, but from what I think is likely a better defensive position.
My point is that a LEO reacting to a perceived sudden threat by trying draw a holstered weapon and trying to shoot the driver in his car just seems like a pretty poor plan from everyone’s perspective, whatever is going down.
OTOH, I do think that people should be able to pass tests of maturity. If a cop sees a bunch of youngish people drinking, does he have to conduct extensive interviews in order to tell what age they are? No, they can show an ID. Same sort of thing here.
But anyway, you are getting well off subject. I don’t think that I will continue to follow you down this digression of yours.
That is relevant how? I did not say that anyone would be ratting anyone else out. I said that they would pay, one way or another. Even if it’s just grounding your 14 year old son for his joy ride that you got a ticket for.
Did you pay any attention to the OP? The cop carries on them a method of inflicting death very quickly. This was probably inspired by the recent use of this method of death.
The question of the OP is whether we should be threatening death by gun for traffic law enforcement.
I also question whether we should enforce compliance by threatening torture by tazer.
It’s not hyperbole. It’s the very question of the thread that we are debating.
Carrying a gun is not “threatening death.” Carrying a taser is not “threatening torture.” I think the onus is on you to show how you come up with such outlandish definitions.
I have two solutions for this problem. First, those who do this sort of thing almost always have a record for a violent crime. We need to lock up violent offenders for MUCH longer periods of time, while VASTLY reducing prison time for non-violent and victimless crimes. Second, fleeing from the cops would count as a violent crime, and qualify for enhanced sentencing. If the punishment for non-violent offenses is significantly reduced, then there’s a lot less incentive to run from the cops just because you have a bag of weed or a warrant for an unpaid speeding ticket, outstanding child support, etc., so I’d feel a lot more comfortable with harsher punishment for fleeing from the cops.
I don’t know the answer to this question. I suspect the police would think having access to protection was important. I could not say what percentage of the time police legally stop someone and discover something else. I could not say what small percentage of these stops result in an argument, fight, arrest, call for backup or worse tragedy.
Perhaps there are highway patrols whose work mainly consists of traffic stops that could just record information and send a bill. That implies a known address and willingness to pay fines. There must be a better way to do this, but I could not say what it is in Canada, much less the US.
When I have been stopped, I am honest and direct. The police are usually nice about it. Generally I was doing something wrong - going too fast, usually, or driving while slightly tired. I suspect the police know which officers are more likely to be more aggressive or abreact to a sarcastic comment, but perhaps not.
I think the conversation might be more fruitful if it started with, “Suppose somebody snapped their fingers and every single lethal weapon in the USA disappeared … forever.”
Until then, I couldn’t support this.
Leaving LEOs out there, defenseless, in a world as it exists, and with people as they exist, is – IMHO – a non-starter.
When LEOs knock on a closed (building) door, or when they have to approach an automobile with absolutely no idea who’s inside that auto or what they did, are doing, or will do, what they have, are capable of, or intend – particularly at night or with tinted windows, etc., etc…
Most of the world carries out routine interactions without firearms being involved. Traffic stops should not be a pretense for warrant checks. Traffic enforcement officers should not have arrest authority. Pull someone over for driving without license plate, give them a ticket for driving without a license plate. End of transaction. There’s no need to run a full background check and look around for contraband.
Traffic cops should be like parking enforcement. If someone is writing me a ticket and I jump in the car and speed off, they don’t chase me. If someone runs from a traffic cop who’s trying to pull someone over for a broken tail light, I don’t care. Log it and address it when you can. If they do it repeatedly and society deems it a serious problem, send a “real” cop out to investigate.
The actual police officer might not see you as a meal ticket, but the government does. Where do you think the money from your speeding ticket goes? Photo radar is actively marketed to police departments not for safety but for saving money.
And of course, speed cameras don’t do anything about drunk or reckless drivers.
I live in a relatively rural area. Whether it is a city police officer, a county deputy, or a state police officer, they generally are working alone with no other officer accompanying them in the vehicle. On the few occasions I have been pulled over in the last 20+ years (speeding, loud exhaust, burnt out light) the officer has walked up on the driver’s side of the vehicle without seeming particularly paranoid or gun-happy, and when I see other people get pulled over, the situation seems similar. However, for the first time ever, I recently saw an officer using the tactic of slowly walking up on the passenger side of a vehicle and cautiously looking in through the windows with his hand on his weapon. The doofus who had been pulled over chose to stop in an active traffic lane on an interstate. The road had a very wide and well-maintained shoulder, and traffic was light. There was no obvious reason the driver could not have pulled over onto the shoulder. The officer couldn’t follow normal procedure and stop his own vehicle at an angle to protect himself from traffic without causing further hazards for other drivers. The driver who had been pulled over was being WEIRD, and I cannot find fault with the officer for having his hand on his weapon.
I totally disagree with the OP. What is needed are cops that know the difference between a gun and a taser. As they say “those that can, do, and those that can’t, teach”.
IOW, systemic problems need analysis to their reasons and then systems solutions.
Responding just to this. Reasonable enough to say that being prepared with a weapon based on suspicious behavior might be okay. But real world turns out that being Black is suspicious in and of itself. And that “weird” is more often mental illness than criminal and that immediate escalation to potentially fatal force is the exact wrong response in that case. Or “weird” is all in the imagination of an LEO scared of the enemy that they see the public as potentially being.