The main reason for that law is so the cop can see whether or not the person on the other side of the window has a gun pointed at him.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
More COPS gone wild....
- Thread starter powderfinger
- Start date
- Status
The main reason for that law is so the cop can see whether or not the person on the other side of the window has a gun pointed at him.
I don't buy the premise that they are out there "risking their lives for the safety of the public". The vast majority of their job involves transferring wealth from the private citizens to the "system". It ain't like murders and bank robberies happen all that often.
When our bikes got stolen, the cops wouldn't even show up to take a report for several hours and basically told us we'd never see them again and they really weren't going to waste their time looking. Drive a few miles per hour over the limit, or jaywalk though and they get to you as fast as they can.
It has nothing to do with "safety" or "justice" and everything to do with wealth transfer.
Anecdotal?...sure. It also happens every single day. That would be "empirical".
When our bikes got stolen, the cops wouldn't even show up to take a report for several hours and basically told us we'd never see them again and they really weren't going to waste their time looking. Drive a few miles per hour over the limit, or jaywalk though and they get to you as fast as they can.
It has nothing to do with "safety" or "justice" and everything to do with wealth transfer.
Anecdotal?...sure. It also happens every single day. That would be "empirical".
Hopkins
Commercial User
If you believe that the jogger was at fault because she gave the cops a reason to arrest her, that is the kind of thinking that gives these out of control cops the power to act like this. Those cops should at miniumum be fired, if not thrown in jail. Instead these out of controll, Rambo cops get off without even a slap on the wrist.
Why should a cop be able to physically assault a citizen, while the citizen has no right to defend himself. Cops and the laws that support them are out of control.
Why should a cop be able to physically assault a citizen, while the citizen has no right to defend himself. Cops and the laws that support them are out of control.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
In and of themselves they're not. The issue with checkpoints is you're being stopped without reasonable suspicion and being searched without probable cause.
Hopkins
Commercial User
That is where my state is heading, and most of the ignorant people that live here are fine with it.
True. But they do have a right to determine your identity when interrogating you related to a crime or infraction. Which they were unable to determine with the jogger.
Sure, those are all laws, yes. However, do you really think it's very American to set up a dragnet, checkpoint in order to enforce these laws (which serve little other purpose than generating revenue)? You go through one of these checkpoints. You have to show your papers. Tell the cop where you've been... where you're going. It's Nazi Germany BS.
I agree with you there. I vehemently disagree with checkpoints.
being stopped for a tint violation or non working lights is not in the same category. Just as jaywalking is a crime, whether anybody likes it or not, it is.
If you think traffic police are there purely to generate revenue, then here's a thought...stick to within the speed limit, then they can't take your money.
Maybe if your kid got knocked over by a speeding driver your attitude would change.
In other news, hundreds of thousands of cops the world over actually helped someone, and the recipient of that help was grateful.
Maybe if your kid got knocked over by a speeding driver your attitude would change.
In other news, hundreds of thousands of cops the world over actually helped someone, and the recipient of that help was grateful.
Hopkins
Commercial User
If their first move wasn't violent then the woman wouldn't have panicked. How about a little common sense? The cops basically attacked her.
tint violations and non working lights are a safety stop. Jaywalking is an infraction, which ultimately relates to a safety issue. Still, do cops take advantage of a safety stop and use it as an 'in' to try to determine other crimes and infractions? Yep. So it's best to not attract attention to yourself in this regard, IMO. I'm also against checkpoints, but this case is not related to checkpoints.
We also have a right to remain silent and/or not incriminate ourselves.
The whole "failure to identify" thing is fraudulent to the core. We don't have to tell a cop anything at all if we don't want to.
4 cops taking down a jaywalking jogger.....was has become of us?
The cops are making sure your headlights work so you won't run over the jay-walkers at night.
The cops are making sure you have proof of insurance so the jay-walkers can sue the insurance company if you run into them because your headlights don't work.
The cops are making sure your windows aren't tinted too dark because the jay-walkers want to see the look on your face just before you run into them.
You dig?
Ultimately, I think everyone here showed very poor judgement in the heat of the moment. But...cops are theoretically held to a higher standard, especially when physical restraint is involved.
As soon as they grabbed the woman--who was certainly adrenalized from running, and by the surprise of being gripped from behind--they changed the situation. It was up to them to contain or escalate.
Since she had already cleared the intersection, she really didn't pose an ongoing threat to the public welfare. Smart money would have just let her continue on her run, and pass on her ticket to the next jaywalker.
As soon as they grabbed the woman--who was certainly adrenalized from running, and by the surprise of being gripped from behind--they changed the situation. It was up to them to contain or escalate.
Since she had already cleared the intersection, she really didn't pose an ongoing threat to the public welfare. Smart money would have just let her continue on her run, and pass on her ticket to the next jaywalker.
Dude... it was a chick in jogging shorts, tennis shoes, and ear buds taking a jog!! What in god' name does it matter if they weren't able to ID her. She wasn't robbing a damn bank. I think these cowboys must get their rocks off acting like this toward helpless citizens.
They were definitely heavy handed. I agree. I also think they definitely over-reacted when they learned she couldn't hear their commands because she had headphones on too. But, I wouldn't say they 'attacked' her. The used tactics to control and detain her. I think their biggest mistake was simply escalating the situation unnecessarily. They're response should have been 'pfft, hey can you take your earphones out, we need to talk to you about jaywalking'. Instead, it was grab, cuff, freak her the f out, while trying to determine her identity. I deal with people and low-level municipal code infractions all day long. I rarely cite people. 'Hey, do you know you can't barbecue on the sand?'
'No.'
'Yeah, we have had a lot of burns caused by sand that stays hot after there was a barbecue on the sand.'
'Oh, I didn't know that.'
'I tell you what, why don't you just move it back to the fire rings where we allow you to use them.'
'Sure no problem.'
'Ok, have a good day.'
^that's how 99% of my public interactions go. It can go south from there, when the person doesn't comply, or starts giving me excuses or a bunch of lip. I'll even let them finish cooking sometimes (to avoid injury) as long as they promise to douse the area with water to cool the sand when they're done (although this often causes a lot of problems because now other people see them cooking and think it's ok and now I'm spending my day talking about barbecues as opposed to watching the water). Still, I think a similar approach could have been used here with this jogger. Yeah, they could have cited her, but it would have probably been more effective to educate her about running with an ID and not jaywalking (especially while unable to hear traffic) than to cuff and FI her. If she was freaking out and causing a big scene (which might be the case here) then cuffing her for scene safety and following the procedures for ID is warranted. As soon as they detain her, they have to follow protocol which includes establishing ID.
I agree. But I'm pointing out that you guys are implying that they don't have the right to check her ID, when they do. Especially, if they've cuffed her (which normally would be entirely unnecessary in this situation). But who knows what happened before this. On the surface, based on what I see in this video, I agree, I think they were heavy handed here.
- Status
