A better way to conduct traffic stops?

[dismalist]

As (I'm only guessing here) one of the few forum members who has been through a police academy and has worked in law enforcement, I offer the following thoughts:


I CAN imagine a way to make a serious try of putting traffic enforcement in the hands of unarmed people.  First, I would launch a major PR campaign that lets everyone know that the traffic enforcement people have no arrest power, no ability to see warrants or wants, and no interest in anything beyond traffic.  Then I would design their cars to not look like local police cars and put green and white lights on them.  The law, of course, would have to be changed to make green and white lights have the same effect as red and blue, and you would be obligated to stop for them.  It would be a crime, chargeable later, to not stop (however, identification would be an issue.  It's likely not constitutional to say "the registered owner will be charged regardless of who was driving.")

I would then place these employees in uniforms that look nothing like police; they would maybe wear khaki pants and bright yellow polo shirts that say "DMV Employee" in large letters.  When they stop you, there would be no haggling and little discussion.  They would say "Hand me your license please," then scan it through a ticket printer.  A ticket would appear and they would simply instruct you that "you can pay this within 30 days at the address shown or proceed to the nearest BMV office to request an administrative hearing.  Have a better day."

I could imagine trying all of the above as a serious possible solution, akin to parking enforcement as others have mentioned.

The thing is, I do think there will be unintended consequences that would possibly make things worse for several reasons:

1.  Police still need to make traffic stops for crimes (Imagine someone who calls 911 and says "My husband just beat me and threatened to come back with a gun.  He left driving his white dodge pickup truck.")  The police would need to stop that car.  Now, under the new system, when someone would see red and blue lights, they would immediately think "DAMN that's not traffic enforcement, that's POLICE, I'm going to jail."  They would be likely to escalate immediately based upon that.  Either way, there will be a greater amount of violence on police stops because by definition police will only be dealing with criminals.

2.  The new system would not likely have stopped the latest one in MN.  Even under the new system, we can't allow people to simply say "No, I'm leaving" and opt out of a stop.  If they refuse to show ID or try to drive away, the police would need to be called (unless as a society we decide we will simply let people with warrants or no license go if they want to and not pursue it.  I'm not in favor of that.)  Thus, the confrontation will still happen - just at the suspect's house, or further down the road.

3. I think the new system would be profoundly unpopular with the public.  Traffic enforcement for it's own sake is incredibly unpopular.  People defend it or put up with it under the guise of finding more serious crimes.  With civilians it would be explicitly JUST about traffic enforcement (read: tickets.)  That won't fly.  If you don't believe me, I could show you how my state tried to ban speed and red light cameras and a number of cities made laws making them impossible to use.  It's technically legal to use them in my state, but a lot of places don't bother because of how difficult to comply with the law it is.  One of the biggest talking points was "I want a police officer stopping people, not just an automated money grab."


----

Although I think a conversation can at least be had about civilian traffic enforcement, I think the truth remains unpopular:  in many or even most of the traffic stop deaths, the whole thing would have been avoided by complying and not resisting or running.  Another unpopular truth:  The Brooklyn Center guy was not some otherwise law abiding citizen.  The shooting was an accident and shouldn't have happened, but at the end of the day this guy resisted and set all of it into motion.  Why did he resist?  He had a warrant out of Minneapolis for a gun offense.  This guy didn't die over air freshener or a suspended license.  He died resisting arrest on a warrant for a gun charge.  Should he have died?  No, and clearly the officer didn't even intend to shoot him.  Am I going to sit here getting all upset that a violent criminal died resisting?  Also no.  Retire the officer, tell her she's done because there's no room for that kind of mistake, apologize to the family because he still shouldn't have died (even though he created the situation) and be done with it.

But as a matter of logic one could do the opposite! Launch a major PR campaign that lets everyone know that the traffic enforcement people will taser you, or mistake their gun for their taser, if you so much as bat an eyelash.

Stopped motorists will adjust their behavior, even if they are wanted criminals!

This way, there are fewer deaths at traffic stops. Criminals will stop driving.

[mahagonny]

At one point several months ago I was expecting the prosecution to come out with testimony saying that Derek Chauvin had been heard using racist language while talking about black and brown people. You know, like they did to the police, in the O. J. Simpson case, Mark Furman. And it paid off big time, reinforcing suspicion that evidence had been irresponsibly handled and convincing the jury of reasonable doubt.  An antisocial attitude directed at blacks in Derek Chauvin would have been the feather in the hat of the defense. Motive.
I think of this sometimes: when police confront a suspect, they know that although black people are only 13% of the population they are 53% per cent of homicide convictions, compared to 44 per cent for white (who are 73 per cent of the population). So in terms of your workday and its risks, as a police officer on the beat, it's almost certain that white face signifies a lower chance that that person has killed someone or is capable of doing so. How much each officer thinks about something like that is our guess.
I continue to suspect that Chauvin was mightily surprised that George Floyd died and would give anything to live that day over and roll Floyd over on his side for better breathing, even in the event that he is acquitted. I suspect Chauvin thought to himself 'this guy is big and strong as a bull; he can take it and he's putting on an act of being traumatized' and of course would have no way of knowing about his significantly compromised health.
If you say someone is racist I want evidence. The burden is on you. If you don't have evidence, it is your attitudes that invite suspicion.

[Caracal]

As (I'm only guessing here) one of the few forum members who has been through a police academy and has worked in law enforcement, I offer the following thoughts:


I CAN imagine a way to make a serious try of putting traffic enforcement in the hands of unarmed people.  First, I would launch a major PR campaign that lets everyone know that the traffic enforcement people have no arrest power, no ability to see warrants or wants, and no interest in anything beyond traffic.  Then I would design their cars to not look like local police cars and put green and white lights on them.  The law, of course, would have to be changed to make green and white lights have the same effect as red and blue, and you would be obligated to stop for them.  It would be a crime, chargeable later, to not stop (however, identification would be an issue.  It's likely not constitutional to say "the registered owner will be charged regardless of who was driving.")

I would then place these employees in uniforms that look nothing like police; they would maybe wear khaki pants and bright yellow polo shirts that say "DMV Employee" in large letters.  When they stop you, there would be no haggling and little discussion.  They would say "Hand me your license please," then scan it through a ticket printer.  A ticket would appear and they would simply instruct you that "you can pay this within 30 days at the address shown or proceed to the nearest BMV office to request an administrative hearing.  Have a better day."

I could imagine trying all of the above as a serious possible solution, akin to parking enforcement as others have mentioned.

The thing is, I do think there will be unintended consequences that would possibly make things worse for several reasons:

1.  Police still need to make traffic stops for crimes (Imagine someone who calls 911 and says "My husband just beat me and threatened to come back with a gun.  He left driving his white dodge pickup truck.")  The police would need to stop that car.  Now, under the new system, when someone would see red and blue lights, they would immediately think "DAMN that's not traffic enforcement, that's POLICE, I'm going to jail."  They would be likely to escalate immediately based upon that.  Either way, there will be a greater amount of violence on police stops because by definition police will only be dealing with criminals.

2.  The new system would not likely have stopped the latest one in MN.  Even under the new system, we can't allow people to simply say "No, I'm leaving" and opt out of a stop.  If they refuse to show ID or try to drive away, the police would need to be called (unless as a society we decide we will simply let people with warrants or no license go if they want to and not pursue it.  I'm not in favor of that.)  Thus, the confrontation will still happen - just at the suspect's house, or further down the road.

3. I think the new system would be profoundly unpopular with the public.  Traffic enforcement for it's own sake is incredibly unpopular.  People defend it or put up with it under the guise of finding more serious crimes.  With civilians it would be explicitly JUST about traffic enforcement (read: tickets.)  That won't fly.  If you don't believe me, I could show you how my state tried to ban speed and red light cameras and a number of cities made laws making them impossible to use.  It's technically legal to use them in my state, but a lot of places don't bother because of how difficult to comply with the law it is.  One of the biggest talking points was "I want a police officer stopping people, not just an automated money grab."


----

Although I think a conversation can at least be had about civilian traffic enforcement, I think the truth remains unpopular:  in many or even most of the traffic stop deaths, the whole thing would have been avoided by complying and not resisting or running.  Another unpopular truth:  The Brooklyn Center guy was not some otherwise law abiding citizen.  The shooting was an accident and shouldn't have happened, but at the end of the day this guy resisted and set all of it into motion.  Why did he resist?  He had a warrant out of Minneapolis for a gun offense.  This guy didn't die over air freshener or a suspended license.  He died resisting arrest on a warrant for a gun charge.  Should he have died?  No, and clearly the officer didn't even intend to shoot him.  Am I going to sit here getting all upset that a violent criminal died resisting?  Also no.  Retire the officer, tell her she's done because there's no room for that kind of mistake, apologize to the family because he still shouldn't have died (even though he created the situation) and be done with it.

Some good points. However.

1. I don't really buy this. To the extent that people do behave violently when they are stopped, isn't it often the other way around? They get stopped because their tail light is out, but actually they have a warrant out for their arrest. If we believe the guy who wrote the original article this kind of thing doesn't happen that much, but to the extent that it does, it seems like it makes things more dangerous for officers who then transfer that risk to the people they pull over. Presumably, if a person just committed a crime and they get pulled over by the cops, they are going to assume it has something to do with that and not a tail light.

2. Why exactly would you necessarily have to involve the police if the person drove away? I agree that you would need to in some cases. If a person was driving extremely recklessly and/or they were believed to be under the influence, or something else was going on that posed an immediate danger, then you would need to call the police. However, if the person was just going 20 mph over the speed limit or went too late through a yellow, why can't that just be a civil matter that doesn't involve the cops? As far as issues over who the car owner is, don't we already do this with ez pass systems? If you go through the fast lane without a pass, you just get a ticket mailed to you.

3. I'm sure it wouldn't be popular, but getting pulled over by the cops for speeding is already not popular. It's also a kind of scary experience, even if you are, like me, a white dude without a criminal record. I wouldn't be excited about getting the ticket, but the whole thing would be a lot less traumatic if it doesn't involve a person carrying a gun.

[mahagonny]

It is solutions or partial solutions that are not popular. The superstars of the racism business won't like them. We're hearing from one of them today. Ibram Kendi is obviously worried that Larry Elder's advice, 'comply and you won't die' is getting some attention.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/compliance-will-not-save-my-body/618637/

[jimbogumbo]

At one point several months ago I was expecting the prosecution to come out with testimony saying that Derek Chauvin had been heard using racist language while talking about black and brown people. You know, like they did to the police, in the O. J. Simpson case, Mark Furman. And it paid off big time, reinforcing suspicion that evidence had been irresponsibly handled and convincing the jury of reasonable doubt.  An antisocial attitude directed at blacks in Derek Chauvin would have been the feather in the hat of the defense. Motive.
I think of this sometimes: when police confront a suspect, they know that although black people are only 13% of the population they are 53% per cent of homicide convictions, compared to 44 per cent for white (who are 73 per cent of the population). So in terms of your workday and its risks, as a police officer on the beat, it's almost certain that white face signifies a lower chance that that person has killed someone or is capable of doing so. How much each officer thinks about something like that is our guess.
I continue to suspect that Chauvin was mightily surprised that George Floyd died and would give anything to live that day over and roll Floyd over on his side for better breathing, even in the event that he is acquitted. I suspect Chauvin thought to himself 'this guy is big and strong as a bull; he can take it and he's putting on an act of being traumatized' and of course would have no way of knowing about his significantly compromised health.
If you say someone is racist I want evidence. The burden is on you. If you don't have evidence, it is your attitudes that invite suspicion.

You are certainly entitled to believe this. In this case, none of the charges presume that Chauvin is racist. I'd guess that is one significant reason the Prosecution did not use that as an argument.

[mahagonny]

At one point several months ago I was expecting the prosecution to come out with testimony saying that Derek Chauvin had been heard using racist language while talking about black and brown people. You know, like they did to the police, in the O. J. Simpson case, Mark Furman. And it paid off big time, reinforcing suspicion that evidence had been irresponsibly handled and convincing the jury of reasonable doubt.  An antisocial attitude directed at blacks in Derek Chauvin would have been the feather in the hat of the defense. Motive.
I think of this sometimes: when police confront a suspect, they know that although black people are only 13% of the population they are 53% per cent of homicide convictions, compared to 44 per cent for white (who are 73 per cent of the population). So in terms of your workday and its risks, as a police officer on the beat, it's almost certain that white face signifies a lower chance that that person has killed someone or is capable of doing so. How much each officer thinks about something like that is our guess.
I continue to suspect that Chauvin was mightily surprised that George Floyd died and would give anything to live that day over and roll Floyd over on his side for better breathing, even in the event that he is acquitted. I suspect Chauvin thought to himself 'this guy is big and strong as a bull; he can take it and he's putting on an act of being traumatized' and of course would have no way of knowing about his significantly compromised health.
If you say someone is racist I want evidence. The burden is on you. If you don't have evidence, it is your attitudes that invite suspicion.

You are certainly entitled to believe this. In this case, none of the charges presume that Chauvin is racist. I'd guess that is one significant reason the Prosecution did not use that as an argument.

In my workplace, my opinion would get you ostracized. Perhaps that's why I post here so often.

What's missing in today's discussion of race is an expectation of evidence when somebody says a white person is racist and a consequence for not having evidence. Character assassination for free.

[Caracal]

It is solutions or partial solutions that are not popular. The superstars of the racism business won't like them. We're hearing from one of them today. Ibram Kendi is obviously worried that Larry Elder's advice, 'comply and you won't die' is getting some attention.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/compliance-will-not-save-my-body/618637/

Hard to decide if this is more racist or more fascist. Probably about equally both.

[Caracal]

I continue to suspect that Chauvin was mightily surprised that George Floyd died and would give anything to live that day over and roll Floyd over on his side for better breathing, even in the event that he is acquitted. I suspect Chauvin thought to himself 'this guy is big and strong as a bull; he can take it and he's putting on an act of being traumatized' and of course would have no way of knowing about his significantly compromised health.
If you say someone is racist I want evidence. The burden is on you. If you don't have evidence, it is your attitudes that invite suspicion.

Ok, I say describing  black men as strong as bulls is racist.

[Parasaurolophus]

Let's forget Chauvin and return to traffic stops, shall we?

[Caracal]

Let's forget Chauvin and return to traffic stops, shall we?

Indeed, sorry, this kind of stuff threatens to make it hard to have an actual conversation around here.

[mahagonny]

I'm trying to figure out why someone told me 'you certainly have a right to believe this.'  Seems like a non-sequitur or it implies a special authority held by that poster, or maybe a group with whom they are identified.