If you can see it, which you often can’t for various reasons.
Making them say it does some things psychologically as well.
Think Stanford/Milgram Experiments
It may be policy with those who’ve dealt with, it needs to be law.
I’ll agree with the caveat that the pretexts need to go away.
Absolutely.
1 Like
Smelling marijuana should be treated no differently than smelling alcohol.
Other than that, here are the changes to policing I recommend:
1.) Ask the police what changes they want
2.) Enact most or all of that.
I could not disagree more. One does not ask tyrants what changes they want.
You want to ask Chauvin?
The voice recorder would go a long way to ending find a pretext stops. Cops are just like anyone else, they run their mouth about what they are thinking and doing. I bet the recordings would catch officers talking about wanting to try to find a reason to make a stop, rather having an unplanned observation trigger a stop.
People are programmed to obey authority figures. People are also gullible and easily fooled. Anyone can be fooled, not everyone can be programmed. Getting people to believe they’ve been fooled, well, that’s another story.
But any police officer I’ve encountered that weren’t plain clothed always had their name and badge number pretty obviously displayed. But I can see in certain situations that it might be difficult.
I do not feel threatened by cops (except maybe that we are not getting our money’s worth.)
- Around here, biggest threat from a cop is that they write questionable tickets to drivers with out-of-state plates
- On Long Island, biggest threat they have an attitude, but having an attitude is not a threat it is just unpleasant
- In Phoenix AZ, biggest threat is that there are not enough of them to respond quickly enough.
There are recordings all over youtube of them admitting it, including to the victim.
The problem is “pretext” is not illegal.
The hide the name tag with the pocket flap.
Then you are very naive. Anything they do to others they will do to you without hesitation.
2 Likes
It is much more than that.
The only proper grounds for making any type of a stop is for the officer to directly observe a violation of the law. When responding to reported crimes, and disturbances, the officer has to observe the situation, speak to witnesses determine if there is actually something going on. And all officers investigate. Uniformed patrolmen do initial investigations, find and collect basic evidence, take statements and file initial reports. Detectives gather specialized evidence and do follow up investigative actions, as required. They are both trying to answer who, what, when, where and how. Why is often subjective, or initially unknown.
On LOng I[quote=“WuWei, post:33, topic:243545, full:true”]
It is much more than that.
[/quote]
On Long Island?
Well maybe. But every employed person I knew there felt threatened by crime than by the police tricking them into showing an ID or tricking them into opening their trunk.
I can tell you for a fact if there a fight between a cop and a non cop I’m jumping in to help the cop. You?
1 Like
No, they fish.
Nope. None of my business unless I witness a crime.
1 Like
Fighting with a cop is not a crime?
Assault? Resisting arrest etc.?
Making up a reason is an act of official oppression. It should be treated as such, with employment consequences, and possibly civil/criminal consequences.
Cops batter citizens all the time. Should I help cops like Chauvin?
I might help if I saw the cop getting his ass kicked by a guy I just saw commit a murder.
