Are police trigger happy?

[The Barbarian]

I haven't had a traffic ticket in 20 years. I'm a white guy in an affluent neighborhood driving a nice car with no points on my record. When I get pulled over I'm friendly and respectful and the tell me to slow down or stop a little bit longer at the stop sign or get my tail light fixed and they send me on my way. They don't even write it up because I'm not a dirtbag. Or at least I don't look or act like one.

A great way to avoid a ticket if you're stopped at night, is to turn the dome light on in the car. It makes it easy for the cop to see everything in the car. Stops like that are stressful, because they never know who they are walking up on, and if it's a wanted felon they can end up dead.

My experience is, they appreciate the courtesy and are likely to reciprocate with a warning.

I'd like a state bureaucracy where the checkers don't work with the subject officers on a day to day basis. And I'm talking about shootings and deaths in custody. Not every little complaint although you could use that to gather all the data on all the cops in one place. Is there some reason we shouldn't gather the data all in one place?

And every cop can have a bad day. So long as he doesn't do any damage to anyone, being rude or abusive verbally, doesn't have to mean he gets punished for one incident. If there's a pattern of trouble, then someone needs to intervene before he escalates.

Teaching people how to behave towards a cop who's asking you for I.D.?

I was surprised to learn that a lot of police don't know when they can legally ask for I.D. There are a few states that allow police to demand I.D. for any reason. Most don't, and generally, they have to lawfully arrest someone before they can demand identification. Texas, for example, is like that.

But a lot of cops haven't been trained, and think that they have a right to demand "your papers, please", whenever they wish.

They have to recruit from the Human race and we don't pay them so great.

What's appalling is that some departments screen out applicants who are significantly more intelligent than average. And courts have upheld their right to do so. Given the level of responsibility we give them, and the consequences of messing up, you would think they'd want to get the best people possible.

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

Fortunately, smart people get in often enough to bring the average IQ of cops nationwide to just a little above average. Not good enough, I think considering we expect them to follow the law correctly, de-escalate disputes, and size up life-and-death situations quickly and accurately.

I'm amazed they do as well as they do,given that departments apparently discriminate against bright applicants.

 

[fool]

A great way to avoid a ticket if you're stopped at night, is to turn the dome light on in the car. It makes it easy for the cop to see everything in the car. Stops like that are stressful, because they never know who they are walking up on, and if it's a wanted felon they can end up dead.

My experience is, they appreciate the courtesy and are likely to reciprocate with a warning.

This is how to get pulled over;
As soon a you see the lights turn on your hazards and reduce speed to acknowledge you're being pulled over.
Now, don't pull over like an idiot, pull up a side street, into a parking lot, keep going down the freeway until you have a wide enough shoulder to do so safely.
Turn on the dome light.
Roll down the window.
Turn the car off, remove the keys and put them on the dash.
Remove you're wallet and get you Drivers License and put the wallet on the dash.
Remove your Registration and Insurance certificate from the place you have it on the visor.
NOT THE GLOVE BOX!
People keep their papers in the glove box and then the first thing they do when they get pulled over is dive for the glovebox to get their papers.
That's sets the cop on edge but not too much because he's seen so many people do it so many times.
Then, with your papers in your hand and your hands on the wheel with the window rolled down and the dome light on the cop will approach and ask you for your papers. Reply with a "yes sir/ma'am" and hold your papers out the window.
Do not turn around.
Face forward at all times and do not move your hands from the wheel except to hand your papers out the window.
If he asks you where you're coming from and going to then tell him.
Because he probably already knows.

And every cop can have a bad day. So long as he doesn't do any damage to anyone, being rude or abusive verbally, doesn't have to mean he gets punished for one incident. If there's a pattern of trouble, then someone needs to intervene before he escalates.

Some people just don't belong in the business. But it is a nasty business with people always at their worst so sometimes a bruiser is what you need at your back when it gets deep.

I was surprised to learn that a lot of police don't know when they can legally ask for I.D. There are a few states that allow police to demand I.D. for any reason. Most don't, and generally, they have to lawfully arrest someone before they can demand identification. Texas, for example, is like that.

But a lot of cops haven't been trained, and think that they have a right to demand "your papers, please", whenever they wish.

In most states if you're driving a car then papers is step 1 and non negotiable.
Things do not move on until after that.

What's appalling is that some departments screen out applicants who are significantly more intelligent than average. And courts have upheld their right to do so. Given the level of responsibility we give them, and the consequences of messing up, you would think they'd want to get the best people possible.

You'd think.

I'm amazed they do as well as they do,given that departments apparently discriminate against bright applicants.

Maybe they're going for brawn?

 

[The Barbarian]

If he asks you where you're coming from and going to then tell him.

That question should trigger an alarm for you, because he knows he has no right to that information, and he's fishing for something.

And there's something depressing about your list; what have we done to ourselves when we have to go through an elaborate checklist of appeasing gestures, just so the people who are supposed to protect us, won't shoot us in a traffic stop?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Yes, each jurisdiction has it's own law enforcement dept., which means that those officers are held accountable by the respective City, County and State agency (and the people of those jurisdictions). Wouldn't you rather go to city hall and complain about the actions of a particular officer then go through the massive red tape of a federal bureaucracy?

I'd like a state bureaucracy where the checkers don't work with the subject officers on a day to day basis. And I'm talking about shootings and deaths in custody.

A shooting review board is usually (if not always) made up of higher ranking police officials from other jurisdictions. They have no interest in covering up a bad shooting incident.

Not every little complaint although you could use that to gather all the data on all the cops in one place. Is there some reason we shouldn't gather the data all in one place?

A police officer's file can be subpoenaed if called for, I'm not sure why you'd want to have one huge database.

I want Our cops to be supported and have the oversight they need to trust in the system. I also see that a lot of people don't understand what's expected of them when they have contact with the Police.

All the more reason to keep them under local jurisdiction. A police officer needs to know his community. He goes to it's churches, his kids go to it's schools and he shops at the same stores as others in the community.

Norman Rockwell put my thoughts into his art:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

It's called "The Bill of Rights", Connie.

And federal officials intervened to clean up corrupt police departments under Reagan and Bush. It's not a new thing.

Federal Oversight Consent Decrees are in the Bill of Rights? I must have missed where in the Constitution of the United States federal law enforcement has jurisdiction over local, county and state law enforcement. Would you cite that please?

Wait, you must have your countries mixed up again barbarian.

 

[The Barbarian]

Federal Oversight Consent Decrees are in the Bill of Rights?

Our liberties are in the Bill of Rights. And the federal government is responsible for intervening when those liberties are violated.

I must have missed where in the Constitution of the United States federal law enforcement has jurisdiction over local, county and state law enforcement. Would you cite that please?

Fourteenth Amendment. Applies the Bill of Rights to States as well as to federal government.

Wait, you must have your countries mixed up again barbarian.

(Connie presents his ideal state)

[/QUOTE]

No one ever bothered the police on Hitler's watch, did they, Connie? No wonder you envy them.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Our liberties are in the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, what you call "liberty" is totally different from what the Founding Fathers defined it as. Let's just say that perv...ahem...people like Hugh Hefner wouldn't have been welcome by the men and women who founded this once great nation of ours.

Fourteenth Amendment.

Ah yes, the Due Process clause. What jury trial were local police depts. given before they were placed under the iron fisted tyranny of federal oversight?

(Connie presents his ideal state)

No one ever bothered the police on Hitler's watch, did they, Connie? No wonder you envy them.

As it's been shown in another thread where you defended a brother having sex with his sister, Hitler was a homosexual who used government to tyrannize his country.

Local police depts. had no authority to override what Hitler's Gestapo did.

 

[The Barbarian]

Unfortunately, what you call "liberty" is totally different from what the Founding Fathers defined it as. Let's just say that perv...ahem...people like Hugh Hefner wouldn't have been welcome by the men and women who founded this once great nation of ours.

What froths you up, is that the Founders limited the power of government. So you are green with envy over the Nazi state, where no one ever limited what police could do to citizens.

Ah yes, the Due Process clause. What jury trial were local police depts. given before they were placed under the iron fisted tyranny of federal oversight?

Those who were unlucky enough to have evidence retained against them, were arrested and tried. Many of them were convicted. However, most of the police in those departments were not charged with crimes and were only compelled to follow the law when dealing with citizens. Since being required to follow the law is not considered a punishment (although it probably seemed so to police in corrupt departments) due process is not an issue. They merely were retrained and monitored to see that further crimes were not committed.

As it's been shown in another thread where you defended incest...

I described it as evil and a sin. I can see why you'd think that was "defending" it. I asked you to show me a compelling public interest in outlawing it between consenting adults and you cut and ran.

Hitler was a homosexual who used government to tyrannize his country.

No civilian review boards on his watch, um? No wonder you admire him. He purged homosexuals from his forces, and sent homosexuals to concentration camps. There's no evidence that he was another self-loathing homosexual who wanted to criminalize homosexuality, but it's possible. Wouldn't that be ironic, Connie?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Unfortunately, what you call "liberty" is totally different from what the Founding Fathers defined it as. Let's just say that perv...ahem...people like Hugh Hefner wouldn't have been welcome by the men and women who founded this once great nation of ours.

What froths you up, is that the Founders limited the power of government. So you are green with envy over the Nazi state, where no one ever limited what police could do to citizens.

Did you know that Hugh Hefner embraced a known pedophile?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/what-you-dont-know-about-hugh-hefner

And thank you for making my case: The Founding Fathers wouldn't have allowed the federal government to intervene on local police dept. matters without first giving them due process of the law.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Ah yes, the Due Process clause. What jury trial were local police depts. given before they were placed under the iron fisted tyranny of federal oversight?

Those who were unlucky enough to have evidence retained against them, were arrested and tried. Many of them were convicted. However, most of the police in those departments were not charged with crimes and were only compelled to follow the law when dealing with citizens. Since being required to follow the law is not considered a punishment (although it probably seemed so to police in corrupt departments) due process is not an issue. They merely were retrained and monitored to see that further crimes were not committed.

Thanks again for acknowledging that local police depts. were put under federal oversight without first being given due process.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
As it's been shown in another thread where you defended a brother having sex with his sister...

I described it as evil and a sin. I can see why you'd think that was "defending" it. I asked you to show me a compelling public interest in outlawing it between consenting adults and you cut and ran.

I ran to the nearest drug store to by a 50 gallon drum of delousing powder (aCW checks to see if he has any left).

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Hitler was a homosexual who used government to tyrannize his country.

No civilian review boards on his watch, um?

Just like the US doesn't have oversight on federal bureaucracy dealing with local police depts.

Thanks again for making my case.

No wonder you admire him. He purged homosexuals from his forces, and sent homosexuals to concentration camps. There's no evidence that he was another self-loathing homosexual who wanted to criminalize homosexuality, but it's possible. Wouldn't that be ironic, Connie?

As it was shown in the thread where you defended a brother having sex with his sister (aCW double checks to see if he has any delousing powder left), Hitler surrounded himself with homosexuals and child molesters. I guess I don't need to be repetitive do I barbarian, as the former represents the latter in the vast majority of cases.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

aCW asks The Barbarian what are his thoughts on the double jeopardy clause in the Bill of Rights?

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Unfortunately, what you call "liberty" is totally different from what the Founding Fathers defined it as.

You and Hitler defined it as "the will of the people, expressed in whatever the police want to do." The Founders thought it meant freedom of speech, secure in one's possessions and free from unlawful searches, and so on.

Let's just say that perv...ahem...people like Hugh Hefner wouldn't have been welcome by the men and women who founded this once great nation of ours.

The founders were not a homogenous bunch. Ben Frankln, for example, had quite a reputation as a womanizer. No other founder seems to have given him any trouble over it. And you just learned another reason why ignorance is holding you back, Connie.

Did you know that Hugh Hefner embraced a known pedophile?

I never spent much time thinking about him.

The Founding Fathers wouldn't have allowed the federal government to intervene on local police dept. matters without first giving them due process of the law.

The courts have upheld the process, so you're out of luck again, Connie.

Connie asks:
Ah yes, the Due Process clause. What jury trial were local police depts. given before they were placed under the iron fisted tyranny of federal oversight?

Barbarian chuckles:
Those who were unlucky enough to have evidence retained against them, were arrested and tried. Many of them were convicted. However, most of the police in those departments were not charged with crimes and were only compelled to follow the law when dealing with citizens. Since being required to follow the law is not considered a punishment (although it probably seemed so to police in corrupt departments) due process is not an issue. They merely were retrained and monitored to see that further crimes were not committed.

And as you know, the law was followed in that regard.

I see you're still dodging the question I gave you a long time ago. "While incest is a sin and wrong, what is the compelling public interest in outlawing it between consenting adults?" You cut and ran last time, too.

I ran to the nearest drug store to by a 50 gallon drum of delousing powder (aCW checks to see if he has any left).

You might consider condoms. Or better yet, just stop that kind of thing.

Connie writes:
Hitler was a homosexual who used government to tyrannize his country.

Barbarian observes:
No civilian review boards on his watch, um? No wonder you admire him. He purged homosexuals from his forces, and sent homosexuals to concentration camps. There's no evidence that he was another self-loathing homosexual who wanted to criminalize homosexuality, but it's possible. Wouldn't that be ironic, Connie?

As it was shown in the thread where you defended a brother having sex with his sister

I said it was evil and a sin. I can see why you'd take that as a defense of it.

Hitler surrounded himself with homosexuals and child molesters.

He put them in concentration camps, Connie. Your admiration is misplaced.

In 1934, a special Gestapo (Secret State Police) division on homosexuals was set up. One of its first acts was to order the police "pink lists" from all over Germany. The police had been compiling these lists of suspected homosexual men since 1900. On September 1, 1935, a harsher, amended version of Paragraph 175 of the Criminal Code, originally framed in 1871, went into effect, punishing a broad range of "lewd and lascivious" behavior between men...An estimated 1.2 million men were homosexuals in Germany in 1928. Between 1933-45, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, and of these, some 50,000 officially defined homosexuals were sentenced. Most of these men spent time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of the total sentenced were incarcerated in concentration camps.

How many of these 5,000 to 15,000 "175ers" perished in the concentration camps will probably never be known. Historical research to date has been very limited. One leading scholar, Ruediger Lautmann, believes that the death rate for "175ers" in the camps may have been as high as sixty percent.
https://www.ushmm.org/learn/student...ms-of-the-nazi-era/persecution-of-homosexuals

 

[The Barbarian]

aCW asks The Barbarian what are his thoughts on the double jeopardy clause in the Bill of Rights?

It's two-fold. It protects an individual from being tried twice for the same offense, or from being punished twice for the same offense.

Hence, if a trial ends in an acquittal, that the end of it for that instance. If whatever one did violated more than one statute, one can still be charged under any other statute that applies.

If an individual is punished for a specific crime under the law, he can't later be given an additional punishment for that crime.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
aCW asks The Barbarian what are his thoughts on the double jeopardy clause in the Bill of Rights?

It's two-fold. It protects an individual from being tried twice for the same offense, or from being punished twice for the same offense.

Hence, if a trial ends in an acquittal, that the end of it for that instance. If whatever one did violated more than one statute, one can still be charged under any other statute that applies.

If an individual is punished for a specific crime under the law, he can't later be given an additional punishment for that crime.

So when LAPD officers Stacy Koon and Laurence Powell, after being acquitted in a court of law by a jury of their peers in the State of California, were brought up on federal charges for the alleged violation of NAACP poster child Rodney King's rights, the federal government violated the 5th Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
Thanks for acknowledging that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
aCW asks The Barbarian what are his thoughts on the double jeopardy clause in the Bill of Rights?

Barbarian observes:
It's two-fold. It protects an individual from being tried twice for the same offense, or from being punished twice for the same offense.

Hence, if a trial ends in an acquittal, that the end of it for that instance. If whatever one did violated more than one statute, one can still be charged under any other statute that applies.

So when LAPD officers Stacy Koon and Laurence Powell, after being acquitted in a court of law by a jury of their peers in the State of California, were brought up on federal charges for the alleged violation of NAACP poster child Rodney King's rights,...

That was a separate crime, under a different statute, so double jeopardy doesn't apply.

the federal government violated the 5th Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Nope. His lawyers didn't even try that one. No appeals court would have supported it. Remember, if a criminal violates more than one law in any given action, he can be tried on every one of the applicable charges.

For example, if a criminal shoots a police officer trying to arrest him, he can be arrested for injuring the officer, as well as for various other crimes, such as, resisting arrest, possessing a gun, if he is a convicted felon, and so on.

And yes, federal statutes apply as well. If he violated a federal gun law, for example, he can be charged for that, too.

 

[fool]

That question should trigger an alarm for you, because he knows he has no right to that information, and he's fishing for something.

He's fishing for evasiveness.
People who just left the bar don't usually like to admit it.

And there's something depressing about your list; what have we done to ourselves when we have to go through an elaborate checklist of appeasing gestures, just so the people who are supposed to protect us, won't shoot us in a traffic stop?

I wouldn't call it an "elaborate checklist of appeasing gestures". A car can be full of bad guys with guns who just pulled a heist. My checklist simply let's the cop see where everything is and what you're doing so he has no need wonder and can keep his hand off his gat.

 

[fool]

A police officer's file can be subpoenaed if called for, I'm not sure why you'd want to have one huge database.

I'm fond of data bases.

All the more reason to keep them under local jurisdiction. A police officer needs to know his community. He goes to it's churches, his kids go to it's schools and he shops at the same stores as others in the community.

Local jurisdiction normally but when someone gets killed I want State.

 

[fool]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
aCW asks The Barbarian what are his thoughts on the double jeopardy clause in the Bill of Rights?



So when LAPD officers Stacy Koon and Laurence Powell, after being acquitted in a court of law by a jury of their peers in the State of California, were brought up on federal charges for the alleged violation of NAACP poster child Rodney King's rights, the federal government violated the 5th Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
Thanks for acknowledging that.

No, that's not how that works.

 

[The Barbarian]

He's fishing for evasiveness.
People who just left the bar don't usually like to admit it.

It's what they do. Don't encourage it.

I wouldn't call it an "elaborate checklist of appeasing gestures".

That's what it is. Putting on the dome light and keeping your hands in sight are sufficient for him size things up. If he wants papers, I'll do the courtesy of saying "it's in the glove box; I'm going to get it out now" or "it's in my wallet, I'm going to take out my wallet, now." And then do it openly and deliberately.

If that's alarming to a cop, he needs to find a job he can handle.

 

[fool]

It's what they do. Don't encourage it.



That's what it is. Putting on the dome light and keeping your hands in sight are sufficient for him size things up. If he wants papers, I'll do the courtesy of saying "it's in the glove box; I'm going to get it out now" or "it's in my wallet, I'm going to take out my wallet, now." And then do it openly and deliberately.

If that's alarming to a cop, he needs to find a job he can handle.

I know he's going to ask for License, Registration, and Insurance.
The three things I have to have to be driving a car down the road.

What's the big deal with having those ready?

 

[The Barbarian]

I know he's going to ask for License, Registration, and Insurance.
The three things I have to have to be driving a car down the road.

What's the big deal with having those ready?

I have them ready. But they're safe in the glove box where they belong. The problem with all of this, is after a while, they think they're entitled, and take offense if you don't do it.