Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 181 to 186 of 186
  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtenchamps1899 View Post
    what do you mean?
    *a pretext stop is when an officer wants to pull over a car because his training and experience tells him that there could possibly be a crime being committed

    How about: It looked like he might be texting.

    Prove that it didn't.


  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GopherJake View Post
    *a pretext stop is when an officer wants to pull over a car because his training and experience tells him that there could possibly be a crime being committed

    How about: It looked like he might be texting.

    Prove that it didn't.
    Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.

    *a pretext stop is when an officer wants to pull over a car because his training and experience tells him that there could possibly be a crime being committed, the officer uses a traffic infraction as a pretext to stop the car.
    Summum ius, summa iniuria

  3. #183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costa Rican Gopher View Post
    Are you suggesting police shouldn't have guns?
    I'd certainly prefer it. Not too many cops killing citizens in England or New Zealand. Why do we assume police need firearms to do their jobs when other nations prove this isn't the case. I can certainly say I'd feel 100 times more relaxed around police if I knew they weren't a split second panic away from being able to shoot me.

  4. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtenchamps1899 View Post
    i'm not sure that i understand your first question.

    the second question seems to be implying something about pretext stops*. do you wanna have a serious conversation about pretext stops?

    I have done dozens of pretext stops**. during the day, the only reason that i might do a pretext stop is if a car meets (usually more than one) certain criteria (e.g. high crime area, the car is not well taken care of, the driver and passengers are acting suspicious, car matches description, driver matches description, etc.). in the vast majority of these stops, someone from that car is going to jail because it is easier to apply knowledge and experience about how criminals act in the daytime. and because we do far less pretext stops in the daytime.

    this is where the pretext stop can be abused by bad cops: "there is a car with four black males. i'm going to figure out a pretext to get inside that car, or at least contact them." police officers are constantly walking a fine constitutional line. in my day job as a teacher, if i screw up, i can fix it pretty easily and very little damage is done. this is the way most people approach their jobs. if a cop screws up, there is a good chance that he is infringing on someone's constitutional rights.

    at night, and this speaks to your question, i am far more likely to do a pretext stop. not only because more crime occurs at night, but because the reason an officer might initiate a pretext stop are more dangerous to the public at night (inoperable lights, speed). however, in the vast majority of the stops that i have done at night, the very fact of the darkness made it impossible to know anything about the person behind the wheel. i am either approaching the car head on, in which case the headlights make it impossible to say anything about the driver. or i am approaching from behind, in which case, unless i am very close, i have no idea who's driving because of the dark and the way ambient lights appear (and even when i get close or have the spotlight on, i am still just dealing with a profile in most cases). not to mention the majority of cars these days have window tinting, which makes it all the more impossible. so, i would argue that racial bias has very little to do with the vast majority of pretext stops at night, or any kind of stop for that matter.

    in fact, the next time you are driving at night, try to figure out the race of the drivers around you. generally, the only time that you will be able to say anything with certainty about that kind of thing is at stoplights. even then you will see that it would take a lot of work to say anything about the majority of the cars that are around or pass you at ant given time.

    *a pretext stop is when an officer wants to pull over a car because his training and experience tells him that there could possibly be a crime being committed, about to be committed or already committed in or around the car (the philando castille stop, most likely). pretexts stops have been ruled as constitutional by the supreme court (if you want to know more, google: pretext stops + supreme court).

    **I am a commissioned reserve deputy in the state of colorado. in colorado, reserves have the same authority and training as a regular deputy so long as certain conditions are met.
    I don't like the idea of a pretext stop in the first place. I don't believe it should be the police's job to try and find crime or stop people for being 'suspicious'. As a law abiding citizen I've been bothered, harassed and stopped numerous times due to 'pretext'. Sure a few times I've gotten hit for speeding but its always been '42 in a 35' or '70 in a 55' IE driving fast on the highway like everyone does. Fine, fair game but its never been any danger to the public situation. But the idea that police, who's training often teaches them to fear the public anyway, get to seek out crime based on assumptions does not speak to a force that is truly 'protecting and serving' me. That's the type of stuff that leads to people that look like me being constantly 'suspicious'

  5. Default

    Yep

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oleboy41 View Post
    I'd certainly prefer it. Not too many cops killing citizens in England or New Zealand. Why do we assume police need firearms to do their jobs when other nations prove this isn't the case. I can certainly say I'd feel 100 times more relaxed around police if I knew they weren't a split second panic away from being able to shoot me.
    Quote Originally Posted by oleboy41 View Post
    I don't like the idea of a pretext stop in the first place. I don't believe it should be the police's job to try and find crime or stop people for being 'suspicious'. As a law abiding citizen I've been bothered, harassed and stopped numerous times due to 'pretext'. Sure a few times I've gotten hit for speeding but its always been '42 in a 35' or '70 in a 55' IE driving fast on the highway like everyone does. Fine, fair game but its never been any danger to the public situation. But the idea that police, who's training often teaches them to fear the public anyway, get to seek out crime based on assumptions does not speak to a force that is truly 'protecting and serving' me. That's the type of stuff that leads to people that look like me being constantly 'suspicious'
    i hope you get your wish. have you thought about writing to your police department? city council? forming some sort of group to deal with your perceived problems? reporting police harassment? or do you just let it simmer?

    i am a realist when it comes to police. i signed up because i was actually pretty anti-police but i realized that i actually had no idea why. i was getting a lot of narratives from a lot of places but i wanted to make up my own mind. i certainly do not think that the law enforcement paradigm that we have in this country is perfect, and i am actually open to other solutions, like an free and open market in which you don't have to call the police if you are not happy with their track record or how they act. you can call their competition. but, at least i am doing something about it. i hear so many people bitching about the problems as if that is going to form solutions out of thin air. too many people simply and unquestioningly buy into an anti-police narrative while sitting on their asses watching their communities go to hell.

    the thing about "the police" is that it does not exist. the minneapolis police department is not the sheriff of niobrara county wyoming is not the harvard university police department is not sevier county tennessee constable. the thing about law enforcement is that it is not what people think it is and they can have a lot of say in what they want it to be. yet the vast majority of citizens have all but ceded their natural right to self-protection to some sort of state law enforcement agency. this is not how it is meant to be.

    robert peel is known as the father of modern law enforcement and he devised 9 principals of proper policing. the one that i have always found the most important is:

    Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence
    what this means is that you are the police. you are responsible for the safety of your family and your community. the police are (should be) simply those that your community has entrusted to protect and serve their community. but notice, these duties are incumbent on every citizen. if the police in your community are bad, you need to do something about that.
    Last edited by bigtenchamps1899; 07-29-2017 at 11:54 AM.
    Summum ius, summa iniuria

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •