Air fresheners are illegal in Minnesota

[volfanhill]

police are sued constantly for this type thing. Blame the lawyers

In this instance, I will blame the cop who didn't know the difference between her taser and gun.

 

[Ttucke11]

How are you liable for an act that hasn't been committed?

I'd say you'd run less since the stop won't result in arrest. Currently the incentive is to run because it's not stopping at the citation.

What warrants take priority? Do you let the burglar go, the domestic assault warrant, the possession of a stolen firearm warrant? I don’t particularly care what incentive a criminal has.

 

[C-south]

what's the downside?

the upside is far fewer of these stops turning violent.

If it turns violent then hopefully the criminal with a propensity to violence gets dealt with.

 

[Rickyvol77]

In this instance, I will blame the cop who didn't know the difference between her taser and gun.

That’s not what we were talking about but try to keep up

 

[LouderVol]

Because of lawyers departments will be liable if that person then goes and robs, kills, assaults etc right after this encounter. And because criminals would never be apprehended and run every single time causing more dangerous situations

This guy didnt run when first pulled over and he was a criminal. Seems like the proposed situation makes that even less likely.

 

[volinbham]

If it turns violent then hopefully the criminal with a propensity to violence gets dealt with.

on the spot death sentence? cop is judge, jury and executioner?

 

[volinbham]

What warrants take priority? Do you let the burglar go, the domestic assault warrant, the possession of a stolen firearm warrant? I don’t particularly care what incentive a criminal has.

I'm sure that could be worked out. (warrant priority)

I mentioned incentive because another poster suggested this would incentivize fleeing - it does the opposite.

Also, fewer violent traffic encounters means fewer dead or injured cops as well as criminals.

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I deal with the after-effects of this improper and illogical equating of cases all day long, very day. Its very frustrating to me that both sides of this debate want to take the one or two things in common with them to weave an overall narrative when even a cursory examination of the facts reveals they are different at a fundamental level.

Example: People lumping in the Floyd case, or the recent Wright shooting case near there, with the traffic stop gone awry of the US Army officer in Virginia.

The right: They failed to comply and that is what caused the problem.

The left: They were black men mistreated by the police who are racist.

The defect in the reasoning of the right is that Wright violently resisted arrest during his traffic stop, justifying one degree of force; Floyd resisted his arrest at a low level, but then stopped, and the Army officer did the wrong thing by defying the traffic stop and then repeatedly refusing lawful orders to get out of the vehicle, which in my view justified the use of OC spray and in fact his case is really not about use of force, at all.

Each case was a different use of force, in response to different resistance, over different periods of time. You cannot say simply:"They should not have resisted" because its is more complicated than that.

The defect in the reasoning of the left is ultimately similar. Floyd resisted for a time, but then stopped and force was still intentionally used over a period of time. In the case of Wright, the officer reacted to a sudden and urgent situation thrust upon the officers when Wright escaped lawful arrest on the warrant, struggled to get away, and got back in the car. That officer had maybe 2 seconds to react, not nine minutes. And the Army officer did just about everything wrong. His claim has no merit at all, as far as I can see.


But in the end, as long as people pick and choose the details they like to weave a story, divorced from the full context of each situation, then that argument is due no weight.

Who are you and what did you do with LG?

 

[Tastylicks]

Hypothetical: What's the downside of pulling someone over for expired tags and stopping at that violation. Forget the "this person has a warrant from 3 years ago on stealing beer from a convenience store so let's bring him in" or the "outstanding warrant for drug possession". Write the citation for the tags. Make a note of the make, model, address etc of the person and hand that off to other cops if the department wants to go after the person in the future.

Good post, I mean, at least in Minnesota wed have a 20 year old still alive, a decorated police officer and her chief still going to work.

I think the world would be better off with that plan

But ya know, he had some minor misdemeanors from 3 years ago, better get into a gun fight SMH

 

[NorthDallas40]

I'm sure that could be worked out. (warrant priority)

I mentioned incentive because another poster suggested this would incentivize fleeing - it does the opposite.

Also, fewer violent traffic encounters means fewer dead or injured cops as well as criminals.

I hear where you’re coming from and yeah it has merit. I can see the police side too, he had warrants out.

I’d hope there is some middle ground. If it’s warrants for traffic tickets then no reason to escalate. If the perp hadn’t failed to appear then no reason to escalate either. If the warrant was for violent offenses (NOTE threatening is not violent, even with a weapon it’s just stupid. Laying hands on someone is violent) then jack the perp up then and there. If there was failure to appear I’d say you also act on that too but then again failure to appear on traffic and petty crap?

Admittedly out of my league here, not my sandbox. But a citizen is dead and a city is being dismantled over valid outrage over a damn expired registration. Something has to give.

 

[C-south]

on the spot death sentence? cop is judge, jury and executioner?

How did you get that from what I said? There is no violence unless the criminal instigates it or they have just cause he’s a danger. Someone with a warrant for brandishing a gun could very well be considered a threat. If someone has a warrant for failing to pay child support they should still go to jail. The consequences of the interaction with law enforcement is solely on them.

 

[C-south]

Good post, I mean, at least in Minnesota wed have a 20 year old still alive, a decorated police officer and her chief still going to work.

I think the world would be better off with that plan

But ya know, he had some minor misdemeanors from 3 years ago, better get into a gun fight SMH

Guess he should’ve already dealt with them.

 

[hUTch2002]

EL or LG?

LG

 

[Rickyvol77]

Someone has comprehension issues

 

[Rickyvol77]

Good post, I mean, at least in Minnesota wed have a 20 year old still alive, a decorated police officer and her chief still going to work.

I think the world would be better off with that plan

But ya know, he had some minor misdemeanors from 3 years ago, better get into a gun fight SMH

Weapons charge and fleeing police. Try to troll harder

 

[Tyler Durden]

How did you get that from what I said? There is no violence unless the criminal instigates it or they have just cause he’s a danger. Someone with a warrant for brandishing a gun could very well be considered a threat. If someone has a warrant for failing to pay child support they should still go to jail. The consequences of the interaction with law enforcement is solely on them.

Do what we say. Or else.

 

[allvol123]

Do what we say. Or else.

Yes, do that. As mad as it makes you, and I have been in that place. Seething, literally raging in my head at some a hole disrespecting me. Too bad, there is a time to bite your tongue and do what your told. It might not be right, but it is the right choice.

 

[volinbham]

How did you get that from what I said? There is no violence unless the criminal instigates it or they have just cause he’s a danger. Someone with a warrant for brandishing a gun could very well be considered a threat. If someone has a warrant for failing to pay child support they should still go to jail. The consequences of the interaction with law enforcement is solely on them.

depends on the violence - does resisting arrest justify death? I'm just saying that violence is less likely if routine stops aren't a predicate to arrest someone for something unrelated to the stop.

in the bigger picture it seems we are using traffic stops to catch people guilty of other things. If the person has outstanding warrants then go serve them rather than wait to get them when you pull them over for a traffic stop.

I'm not 100% sold on my idea - just playing with the problem to find a better solution.

It's like our health insurance being tied to our work - it's that way because of choices long ago and it's tough to unwind but no one would design it that way today. Treating traffic stops as traffic stops might be a better way of doing things.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Yes, do that. As mad as it makes you, and I have been in that place. Seething, literally raging in my head at some a hole disrespecting me. Too bad, there is a time to bite your tongue and do what your told. It might not be right, but it is the right choice.

And that is the problem. We have given the cops a blank check to do with us as they wish because all parties involved know that cops have the ability, and in a lot of cases desire, to reach for their gun and then really go to work. This has only mildly changed with the implementation of dashboard cams and then body cams. Still a lot of cops think they can literally get away with murder despite video evidence. Reform is needed and it starts with defunding. Hitting them in the wallet is the only way people in America can be taught a lesson, cops are no different.

 

[volinbham]

And that is the problem. We have given the cops a blank check to do with us as they wish because all parties involved know that cops have the ability, and in a lot of cases desire, to reach for their gun and then really go to work. This has only mildly changed with the implementation of dashboard cams and then body cams. Still a lot of cops think they can literally get away with murder despite video evidence. Reform is needed and it starts with defunding. Hitting them in the wallet is the only way people in America can be taught a lesson, cops are no different.

Yeah! Stick it to the cops no matter how that screws the communities that need the police the most. That'll show em

 

[allvol123]

And that is the problem. We have given the cops a blank check to do with us as they wish because all parties involved know that cops have the ability, and in a lot of cases desire, to reach for their gun and then really go to work. This has only mildly changed with the implementation of dashboard cams and then body cams. Still a lot of cops think they can literally get away with murder despite video evidence. Reform is needed and it starts with defunding. Hitting them in the wallet is the only way people in America can be taught a lesson, cops are no different.

And nothing said here, makes jumping in your car and taking off the right move. In fact, it is about the dumbest move you can make. Completely idiotic.

As much as I dont like over policing, all bets are off once you make a move like this.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Yeah! Stick it to the cops no matter how that screws the communities that need the police the most. That'll show em

Imagine if the money that goes towards the systematic abuse, impoverishment, and imprisonment of those communities went to something positive. Like education for instance.

 

[C-south]

Imagine if the money that goes towards the systematic abuse, impoverishment, and imprisonment of those communities went to something positive. Like education for instance.

It’s a cultural problem not a money problem. You can throw all the money you want at education in these areas and it won’t make a difference. If you look at the looting and rioting videos from last summer and the past few days you’ll notice striking similarities.