A better way to conduct traffic stops?

[jimbogumbo]

Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?

I think they shoot him first, and finesse those details later. He was a pretty shit parent, after all, and his divorce was acrimonious (or worse: the shiftless bugger never got it together enough to get married in the first place!). Also, I heard from his HS buddies he liked to smoke weed.

Well, if he's white, at least you can be pretty sure there won't be any riots or news coverage beyond your locale.

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

[Caracal]

On topic: it seems to me that we should start accepting people "getting away". If someone is running, you can chase and tackle them, but shooting is dangerous to everyone in the vicinity. If a car is making a break for it, shooting is a danger to everyone in the vicinity, and chasing them leads to all kinds of reckless driving. Note the make, model, and colour, as well as the license plate, and nab them later on at their house instead. We don't need action heroes.

Especially not for traffic enforcement, as the article observes.

Well said

I think this is supposed to be standard procedure lots of places, although I don't know how much its actually followed. Police chases are really dangerous, both for police officers and everyone else. Unless you have good reason to think someone is an imminent danger to others, you really don't want cops engaged in a high speed chase.

[marshwiggle]

Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?

I think they shoot him first, and finesse those details later. He was a pretty shit parent, after all, and his divorce was acrimonious (or worse: the shiftless bugger never got it together enough to get married in the first place!). Also, I heard from his HS buddies he liked to smoke weed.

Well, if he's white, at least you can be pretty sure there won't be any riots or news coverage beyond your locale.

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

From  the article:

Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.

[Caracal]

Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?

I think they shoot him first, and finesse those details later. He was a pretty shit parent, after all, and his divorce was acrimonious (or worse: the shiftless bugger never got it together enough to get married in the first place!). Also, I heard from his HS buddies he liked to smoke weed.

Well, if he's white, at least you can be pretty sure there won't be any riots or news coverage beyond your locale.

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

From  the article:

Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.

There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.

You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.

Honestly, if you look at the details of the Justine Damond shooting, it is about policing and race even though the police officer was black and the victim was white. Noor's defense attorneys tried to argue that when he was startled in his patrol car, he feared an ambush because of anti police sentiment. When you have militarized police forces who are trained to think of themselves as keeping order in dangerous areas, rather than protecting people, it makes sense that people of all races end up getting shot and killed.

Noor's partner also drew his gun when he was startled. That's actually an important detail. You have police officers responding to a call that wasn't particularly alarming. The response to being started in that situation really shouldn't be to draw a gun. Yet we think of that as normal. Sure, the guy who then shoots someone obviously shouldn't be a police officer, but at that point you're just relying on the temperament and good judgement of people.

[marshwiggle]

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

From  the article:

Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.

There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.

You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.

So how is the Derek Chauvin case specifically about race?

[mahagonny]

Wow, you can't fire a taser at police. When did they start that? Soon we will have no rights left.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?

I think they shoot him first, and finesse those details later. He was a pretty shit parent, after all, and his divorce was acrimonious (or worse: the shiftless bugger never got it together enough to get married in the first place!). Also, I heard from his HS buddies he liked to smoke weed.

Well, if he's white, at least you can be pretty sure there won't be any riots or news coverage beyond your locale.

Right, whites only riot when their team wins or loses a football game

[lightning]

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

From  the article:

Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.

There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.

You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.

So how is the Derek Chauvin case specifically about race?

What makes you think that it isn't about race?

[marshwiggle]

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

From  the article:

Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.

There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.

You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.

So how is the Derek Chauvin case specifically about race?

What makes you think that it isn't about race?

In the quote above, of a black officer killing a white woman, Caracal said, (as I highlighted), "its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race". So apparently a black officer killing a white person is NOT about race but a white officer killing a black person IS. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind that.

[jimbogumbo]

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

From  the article:

Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.

There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.

You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.

So how is the Derek Chauvin case specifically about race?

What makes you think that it isn't about race?

In the quote above, of a black officer killing a white woman, Caracal said, (as I highlighted), "its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race". So apparently a black officer killing a white person is NOT about race but a white officer killing a black person IS. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind that.

I can't speak for Caracal, but to me the cases are apples and oranges. The officers using handguns all seem to have been frightened or at least startled. I don't think a reasonable case that Derek Chauvin was either.

[marshwiggle]

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

From  the article:

Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.

There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.

You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.

So how is the Derek Chauvin case specifically about race?

What makes you think that it isn't about race?

In the quote above, of a black officer killing a white woman, Caracal said, (as I highlighted), "its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race". So apparently a black officer killing a white person is NOT about race but a white officer killing a black person IS. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind that.

I can't speak for Caracal, but to me the cases are apples and oranges. The officers using handguns all seem to have been frightened or at least startled. I don't think a reasonable case that Derek Chauvin was either.

Are you truly suggesting that if Chauvin had used a gun, this would be less explosive????

[Caracal]

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

From  the article:

Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.

There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.

You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.

So how is the Derek Chauvin case specifically about race?

What makes you think that it isn't about race?

In the quote above, of a black officer killing a white woman, Caracal said, (as I highlighted), "its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race". So apparently a black officer killing a white person is NOT about race but a white officer killing a black person IS. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind that.

Its kind of pointless to try to have a discussion when you can't seem to manage to actually read posts. You took that quote totally out of context.

[jimbogumbo]

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

From  the article:

Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.

There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.

You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.

So how is the Derek Chauvin case specifically about race?

What makes you think that it isn't about race?

In the quote above, of a black officer killing a white woman, Caracal said, (as I highlighted), "its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race". So apparently a black officer killing a white person is NOT about race but a white officer killing a black person IS. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind that.

I can't speak for Caracal, but to me the cases are apples and oranges. The officers using handguns all seem to have been frightened or at least startled. I don't think a reasonable case that Derek Chauvin was either.

Are you truly suggesting that if Chauvin had used a gun, this would be less explosive????

Don't be silly. I'm referring to the danger of armed officers conducting traffic stops and such. I am saying that the nature of what Chauvin did sets this apart for many people who often are more sympathetic to police killings, and rightly so.

[Descartes]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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. 

Just a question:

Since they would not be EMS of any kind, would they be allowed to exceed the speed limit, and if so, *when? (Even if the're only going to try to flag someone down to give them a ticket, in principle if someone blows by them over the limit they'd try to get close enough to at least flash the lights.)

*I have no idea who can be authorized to break speed limits, or by whom.