|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah they can be sure, but this is a pretty weird question to ask about a case where a cop explicitly said he decided to pull the guy over for looking at him and was only using the turn signal as an excuse. He said he followed him because he looked at him funny. He pulled him over and ticketed him for not using his turn signals. There is a difference.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Good point. I suppose you wouldn't mind if we assigned a cop to follow you around all day and write you a ticket every time you do anything that's arguably a moving violation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:He said he followed him because he looked at him funny. He pulled him over and ticketed him for not using his turn signals. There is a difference. He did use his turn signal. He just didn't use them a full 100ft before the intersection (which is probably bullshit regardless; what are the odds that the officer can correctly judge 100ft?). What the officer did is technically legal. It's also power tripping bullshit that shouldn't be happening and yet more evidence that police shouldn't be afforded any professional respect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Good point. I suppose you wouldn't mind if we assigned a cop to follow you around all day and write you a ticket every time you do anything that's arguably a moving violation. Dirk the Average posted:He did use his turn signal. He just didn't use them a full 100ft before the intersection (which is probably bullshit regardless; what are the odds that the officer can correctly judge 100ft?).
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:it'll show you how random those stops really are. Except in the specific case we're discussing the officer admitted that it wasn't random and it was because he dared to make eye contact with the officer. Even the cop thread is willing to admit that if you get tailed long enough they can find something to pull you over for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except in the specific case we're discussing the officer admitted that it wasn't random and it was because he dared to make eye contact with the officer. It's also worth mentioning the particular racial history of black people suffering consequences for not looking away from their superiors. 160 years ago that would have likely gotten him a whipping, and 50 years ago he would have been at risk of of a lynching for making eye contact with a cop (or a white woman). So I guess you can call this progress, but the same attitude prevails. I know you just reflexively defend police conduct, Dead Reckoning, but this may not be the hill to die on. There are plenty of questionable stops where the cop did not outright state his lack of professionalism. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I've driven on military installations for the better part of a decade, so I have already experienced that. Really? I drove on military bases for years, and I never had an MP decide he didn't like my face and start tailing me around post until I gave him a reason to pull me over and ticket me, and neither has anyone I know. That sounds abnormal as all hell. How can I best explain to you why we shouldn't put up with the government singling out individuals for vague and arbitrary reasons and scrutinizing them for a reason to fine them. Maybe I can find a way that's more compatible with your worldview so you can understand where I am coming from. "After tailing you all over town, I finally saw you use your signal 90ft from the intersection instead of 100ft. Here's your fine." "What, why were you following me?" "I saw you come out of a gun store so I thought maybe you could be a gun owner, and I like to keep my eye on private gun owners. But the ticket isn't for that, it's for using your signal wrong."
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Everyone on this thread should sign up for a ride-along with a nearby department, it'll show you how random those stops really are. Everyone in this thread should sign up for a tour of Pyongyang, you'll be assigned friendly handlers and it'll show you the truth behind all these wild "famine" and "police state" allegations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
CNN already running the story that the killing of a Texas cop was probably due to anti-police rhetoric http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/31/us/texas-deputy-killed-gas-station/index.html quote:Hickman said while a motive has not been confirmed, he said he believes his deputy was killed because "he was wearing a uniform." No need to give this guy a trial, he obviously did it because black people hate cops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:CNN already running the story that the killing of a Texas cop was probably due to anti-police rhetoric The beatings will continue until
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:CNN already running the story that the killing of a Texas cop was probably due to anti-police rhetoric 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I know you just reflexively defend police conduct, Dead Reckoning, but this may not be the hill to die on. There are plenty of questionable stops where the cop did not outright state his lack of professionalism. I mean if DR really liked cops he would admonish the officer's actions just like the officer's Boss did. But he didn't so that tells you where his head is at. tezcat fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The proper way to deal with a police officer is to avert your eyes from their magnificence, apologize for bothering to sully their presence, and beg for forgiveness. There was a local thing here with someone getting cited and the cop's original reason for suspicion was that the driver looked away from him. So you actually have to hit the absolutely perfect balance of acknowledging the cop without challenging them. It may involve bowing and scraping? It took me a minute to find: quote:According to the officer who filed the incident report, “My attention was drawn to the vehicle as the operator upon observing me immediately looked nervous and quickly turned his head forward and continued driving.” Look at the cop, don't look at the cop, you're screwed no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Really? I drove on military bases for years, and I never had an MP decide he didn't like my face and start tailing me around post until I gave him a reason to pull me over and ticket me, and neither has anyone I know. That sounds abnormal as all hell. The driver in this case didn't get a fine, he got a warning. If I knew the cops liked to post up outside the gun store, I'd be really conscious of my driving when I went past there. SedanChair posted:Everyone in this thread should sign up for a tour of Pyongyang, you'll be assigned friendly handlers and it'll show you the truth behind all these wild "famine" and "police state" allegations. tezcat posted:It's the perfect hill for him to die on because the officer's Superiors have already acknowledged it's a problem. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:My experience has been that MPs get bored easily and will go fishing for literally any pretext for a stop. I was cited for 3 mph over the speed limit once. Oh yes this absolutely, but there's a difference between getting cited for piddly bullshit, and an MP singling out someone specifically that they don't like for a bullshit reason and then tailing them until they can find a reason to cite them. Dead Reckoning posted:The driver in this case didn't get a fine, he got a warning. If I knew the cops liked to post up outside the gun store, I'd be really conscious of my driving when I went past there. Someone tell Washington DC that all they have to do to get around Heller is a backdoor gun tax: start ticketing gun owners for going 1mph over the speed limit. Republicans will never be able to catch on to what is happening because it's impossible to ever know that that's the reason behind a specific given stop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:He said he followed him because he looked at him funny. He pulled him over and ticketed him for not using his turn signals. There is a difference. Odd. On camera he said "'You made direct eye contact with me and held onto it when I was passing you,' the officer then stated.". And the released statement from the City is "The traffic infraction was verified by the video; however making direct eye contact with an officer is not a basis for a traffic stop." Where are you getting "He said he looked at him funny"? Edit: And he did use his turn signal, the warning was for not using it 100 ft before the turn. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Also I look at cops funny all the time as they warrant it. Guy was a power tripping loser, and should be fired.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Also I look at cops funny all the time as they warrant it. if we started firing power tripping cops there wouldn't be any more cops i got pulled over for drive-by loitering once, cops are scum
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:if we started firing power tripping cops there wouldn't be any more cops How does that even work? Like I get that officers can make up a pretext for a stop, I'm curious how you can be drive-by loitering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:How does that even work? Like I get that officers can make up a pretext for a stop, I'm curious how you can be drive-by loitering. i never figured it out, apparently we waited too long at a stop sign. driving around aimlessly one night in high school and we were arguing about what cd to put in next then all of a sudden, cop lights. when we asked the cop what we had done wrong he said loitering in a 'known drug area' which was one of the wealthiest parts of town and right outside of the town's biggest church. the cop was the first person we had seen in a while, i think maybe he was just bored and lonely  this isn't the only time the police have talked to me on a dumb fake pretext but it's the most absurd by far boner confessor fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:if we started firing power tripping cops there wouldn't be any more cops Is this a feature or a bug of the proposed policy? I'm leaning towards feature.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:CNN already running the story that the killing of a Texas cop was probably due to anti-police rhetoric "We have to stop politicizing these tragedies. But seriously can we use this to shut Black Lives Matter up now?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
codenameFANGIO posted:"We have to stop politicizing these tragedies. But seriously can we use this to shut Black Lives Matter up now?" it is an unimaginable tragedy that a black man can sneak up behind a white cop and speak hurtful anti-police rhetoric at him until the cop dies from shame. if only that cop had a gun to defend himself with
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
LAPD to roll out 7000 Body Cameras. http://time.com/4013835/lapd-body-camera-program/ The first of 7,000 cams will be deployed next week The Los Angeles Police Department will begin rolling out body cameras next month, the first stage of a program that will eventually become the largest in the U.S. The LAPD, which has been studying the technology for two years, will begin introducing the first batch of a total of 7,000 cameras next week, according to the LA Times. The first 860 cameras, paid for by private donations of around $1.5 million, will be gradually deployed over the next month. The program will make the police department the biggest law enforcement agency to widely adopt the technology. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Watch the LAPD be the first PD to actually murder someone with a body camera. As in using the camera as a blunt weapon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Haha. You'd think that "take an opportunity to observe the cops doing their job, it may help you understand the issue" wouldn't be a controversial suggestion, but here we are. What exactly about seeing cops on their best behavior will help you "understand the issue?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Watch the LAPD be the first PD to actually murder someone with a body camera. As in using the camera as a blunt weapon. "Is that your partner on the body camera video of him beating that guy to death with the body camera?" "I don't remember" "Case dismissed!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:LAPD to roll out 7000 Body Cameras. Gimme gimme I want one for free
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh yes this absolutely, but there's a difference between getting cited for piddly bullshit, and an MP singling out someone specifically that they don't like for a bullshit reason and then tailing them until they can find a reason to cite them. SedanChair posted:What exactly about seeing cops on their best behavior will help you "understand the issue?" Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You'll have to pardon me, but I'm having a hard time seeing why "I'm going to pull this guy over for frivolous violations and see if he gives me pretext for a breathalyzer or vehicle search" is a-okay, but "I that guy was staring at me a little too long, let me follow him and see if he gives me pretext for a stop" is not. I see both of these as bad and it alarms me deeply that you apparently see them as features instead of bugs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You'll have to pardon me, but I'm having a hard time seeing why "I'm going to pull this guy over for frivolous violations and see if he gives me pretext for a breathalyzer or vehicle search" is a-okay, but "That guy was staring at me a little too long, let me follow him and see if he gives me pretext for a stop" is not. Why do you think this is a-okay. It's generally impossible to prove as long as the cop isn't dumb enough to come out and say that's what he's doing, but I don't think pulling people over under false pretenses to fish for reasonable suspicion should be professionally acceptable. It's also  a-okay for a cop to pretend he smells marijuana as an excuse to search your car, in the sense that it's unlikely he'll be caught, but if he says "oh yeah that was a total lie but it worked to get me access to the car" I think there should be punishment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:LAPD to roll out 7000 Body Cameras. Hopefully they won't have the issues with cameras being destroyed like they do with their dashcams. quote:An inspection by Los Angeles Police Department investigators found about half of the estimated 80 cars in one South L.A. patrol division were missing antennas, which help capture what officers say in the field. The antennas in at least 10 more cars in nearby divisions had also been removed. You would think destruction of police property would be a crime worth investigating, but apparently there's no way to tell who damaged the dashcam gear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Do you think that as soon as the ride along gets out of the car, the officer goes and finds a minority to pull over, like a fart he's been holding in all day? The fact that you have to resort to these absurd strawmen every time someone brings up a good point shows how disingenuous you are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Do you think that as soon as the ride along gets out of the car, the officer goes and finds a minority to pull over, like a fart he's been holding in all day? What I think is that a watched cop doesn't act the same as an unwatched one. Do you really believe that isn't the case?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
New York Times article today about rising murder rates: (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html?_r=0) The article raises the point that less aggressive police may mean increased murder rates. Is that likely, or is another factor in 2015 more to blame?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Mojo Threepwood posted:New York Times article today about rising murder rates: (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html?_r=0) According to a chart of murders by year, the murder rate in NYC made an unusually large decrease in 2013 and 2014 that they're basing this on. If they're increasing, it's less "POLICE NEED TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE!  " and more "They're returning to what they normally were through the 2000s and 2010s except for an unusual dip for two years."
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Mojo Threepwood posted:New York Times article today about rising murder rates: (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html?_r=0) Murder rates have been up in most large cities this year, so unless police have been less aggressive across the board, that explanation doesn't hold up. That theory is being pushed by line cops - department officials have pretty much uniformly rejected it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Mojo Threepwood posted:New York Times article today about rising murder rates: (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html?_r=0) I think they are pretty aggressive http://www.ksat.com/news/ksatcom-exclusive-unedited-video-of-fatal-deputy-involved-shooting
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
It's pretty lucky that there was video of that murder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Lemming posted:It's pretty lucky that there was video of that murder. Yet far enough away that the cops didn't see the black man recording and taze/beat/shoot him too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 19:00
|
|