That’s fine when it happens. The problem is when the police use minor violations to start a fishing expedition. This is the reason why elected officials are removing officer discretion when making stops for minor infractions.
This happened to me a couple years ago. I returned to my office from a remote work location around noon. After I got on a dead end road to my office building, the police waved me over. They said I had a brake light out. I got a warning and had two weeks to fix it and have any police officer sign off on it. That might have been acceptable, except the light wasn’t burned out. I drove to the nearest police station and got the warning signed off, Rehnquist mailed the document to the state police. They almost certainly stopped me because there was a drive by shooting at a bus stop a couple blocks from my office. They had absolutely no good reason to stop me and trumped up a false violation to go fishing.
1, barky already pointed it out, 2, it’s funny that considering the crazy crackpot stuff that you usually post that you’re calling the people that call your BS out, the trolls
That’s because your parents never had to sit you down and explain to you how to try not to get shot when interacting with a police officer. A lot of people who get pulled over for minor equipment issues did get that talk, and they give it to their own children. And even with the talk, they still get shot despite doing nothing wrong. See: Philando Castille, who was polite, complied with everything the officer told him to do, and then was shot and killed for complying with the officer’s demand for identification. All because of a supposed burned-out tail light.
Until police interactions become non-life threatening for certain segments of our population, I think it entirely appropriate to limit the conditions under which such potentially life-threatening situations can develop.
The just-passed Federal Infrastructure Bill will provide my state with $104 million to build a huge number of new EV charging stations. This will truly be a game-changer.
Don’t forget the port improvements. Dredging channels will aid all shipping, especially RO/RO ships bringing in and taking away cars, trucks, and heavy equipment. Baltimore is not a large port, but the RO/RO business is the largest on the East Coast.
How many examples are there of officers pulling someone over for a burned out tail light and nothing going wrong? Obviously, it’s not fair to assume everyone in a certain segment of the population is a criminal. I don’t think it’s fair to assume every officer is a racist or someone who’s going to shoot you either. Rather than stopping officers from conducting a traffic stop (in which they could and often do discover other illegal activities like dui’s, drug possession, illegal firearms, etc), I’d like to see something else done. I’m not sure what exactly. Maybe better investigations of complaints vs officers. Body cams should make investigations easier. Would be nice to have those as mandatory everywhere.
Yes, this is somehow overlooked by some people. In South Jersey, which is the poorer and frequently overlooked part of the state, the Governor recently announced the subsidized construction of 2 manufacturing facilities that will make components for wind turbines.
Now, with the passage of the federal infrastructure bill, money has been allotted for the improvement of nearby Port Salem, and this will allow those wind turbine components to be shipped out to the rest of the US, and–hopefully–the world.
Whether someone drives an EV or not, this is a win-win for both the economy and the environment.
It’s called proper training. I agree with you - IF (and only if) it was done fairly across all ethnic groups. In many places in this country it’s NOT. There’s an AA engineer who works for me and I’ve witnessed him being pulled over for no apparent reason what-so-ever. He’s stopped at least 10 times a year and has never been issued a ticket. His car has been searched more times then all my white friends COMBINED. Could it be because he’s AA and drives a BMW. Wife drives a Lexus SUV.
Sorry, I do not follow…at all. Would you like to quote the entire post and reply to it? Do you drive faster in a higher speed limit zone than you do a lower speed limit zone? Me too.
Understood. I generally drive with traffic. “Around here” varies.
No idea how to solve that problem short of converting the world to real Christianity (off topic, and may get flagged, but I don’t see a true follower of Christ being a racist…it just doesn’t work) or legislating morality . And I agree, it’s a problem. I still don’t think segregating the cops from the public is the answer. I have “diversity training” (again) next week. I’ll probably ignore it. No amount of training, in my opinion, is really going to change a person’s biases. About the best thing I know of to eliminate biases or prejudices is to prove the biases or prejudices wrong. That was done (for me) by interaction with other people of other races and beliefs. We’re kind of all in this thing together anyway, right?
I think it’s fair to assume every officer is a potential danger. Not because I think cops are universally evil, but because of how cops are trained. They’re trained to assume every encounter will potentially get them killed, and they’re trained to keep top of mind the idea that they must make sure that doesn’t happen. They’re being trained to be terrified on the job. In short, PTSD is being trained into them because they’re told that there are potential cop killers everywhere, and then they are issued a firearm and told to go mingle.
Until training like “Bulletproof Warrior” and the like are banned, and we either get rid of or deprogram the cops who were trained by those methods, then yeah, every traffic stop is a threat because you can’t be sure what will trip the cop’s panic response and get you shot. That’s a more detailed explanation of why I think, for now at least, that traffic stops for minor stuff that doesn’t really matter should be curtailed - but in conjunction with refocusing our police training away from the idea that the world is chock full of cop-hunting monsters who will kill them if they aren’t killed first.
Only if it’s fair to assume every black guy rolling on 20’s out past dark is a potential criminal. If we’re going to profile, let’s profile.
[quote=“shadowfax, post:135,
topic:180340”]
They’re trained to assume every encounter will potentially get them killed
[/quote]
It potentially could. So…the cop would need to be ready for that and still not assume the guy you pulled over is going to be the one who tries to do it. I believe a little understanding of the cop’s position is in order.
I think it goes both ways. Cop pulls over a black guy (because that’s what we’re talking about. A black guy knows he’s labeled “black” just like I know I’m labeled “white” even though neither term is really not 100% accurate!), black guy isn’t doing anything other than driving with a tail light out, cop learns…hmmm…all black guys aren’t criminals (which…is obvious).
On the flip side, cop pulls over black guy, cop doesn’t give the guy any unnecessary grief, black guy decides…hmmm…maybe all cops aren’t out to get me (obvious again).
My real opinion on it is that the general idea of the current ideology is to divide us when we need to be unified.
“All cops are racially biased potential killers” is equal to “all black guys out at night are up to something criminal”.
What we need is something to unify us. May I suggest Mississippi State Football?
No way! Them’s fightin words! Gamecocks football, if you please, or better yet, Gamecocks women’s basketball. Maybe if you change that to SEC sports we’ll get a few more takers.
So then your original argument of lowering speed limits will save gas is totally bogus. The only way lowering speed limits will save on gas usage is if people follow the limits. By your own admission people don’t.
Nah. People generally drive slower in an area with a lower posted limit. Like I said. Numerous times. Do you generally drive the same speed in a 55 mph zone as you do in a 70 mph zone? Me either.
