Cops that uses frivolous reasonable cause

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: ric1287
and nothing happens to you if you are not drinking.

Slippery slope, my friend.

 

[ric1287]

how so? if it prevents drunken idiots from driving, why is wasting 5 minutes of you time a bad thing?

I don't understand these theories on police, people want to not be bothered at all by them, but yet expect crime to be down, and response times up. Makes 0 sense.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
After having a friend get hit by a drunk driver, I am supportive of cops being able to pull you over to check if your drunk.

No offense, but it's always the people directly involved in incidents that become the worst purporters in the degradation of our civil liberties... and parents are usually the worst of the bunch (*ahem*MADD*ahem*). I don't see how knowing someone that was killed by a drunk driver is proper justification for the practice of unwarranted police checkpoints.

I suppose cops should just wait for any crime to happen rather than try and stop it beforehand. Makes more sense that way I guess.

edit* and theres reason for it...cops don't pull over a mom driving a mini-van for "stopping past the cross walk". They pull over a car with tinted windows, and 4 teenage kids driving at 3 am.

That's brilliant! And also why some people performing criminal activites have figured out how to drive minivans and apply soccer ball stickers to them.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
After having a friend get hit by a drunk driver, I am supportive of cops being able to pull you over to check if your drunk.

No offense, but it's always the people directly involved in incidents that become the worst purporters in the degradation of our civil liberties... and parents are usually the worst of the bunch (*ahem*MADD*ahem*). I don't see how knowing someone that was killed by a drunk driver is proper justification for the practice of unwarranted police checkpoints.

I suppose cops should just wait for any crime to happen rather than try and stop it beforehand. Makes more sense that way I guess.

edit* and theres reason for it...cops don't pull over a mom driving a mini-van for "stopping past the cross walk". They pull over a car with tinted windows, and 4 teenage kids driving at 3 am.

That's brilliant! And also why some people performing criminal activites have figured out how to drive minivans and apply soccer ball stickers to them.

your point being? stop the obvious cars, not every single one. not every criminal drives a mini-van, it was just an example.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
After having a friend get hit by a drunk driver, I am supportive of cops being able to pull you over to check if your drunk.

No offense, but it's always the people directly involved in incidents that become the worst purporters in the degradation of our civil liberties... and parents are usually the worst of the bunch (*ahem*MADD*ahem*). I don't see how knowing someone that was killed by a drunk driver is proper justification for the practice of unwarranted police checkpoints.

I suppose cops should just wait for any crime to happen rather than try and stop it beforehand. Makes more sense that way I guess.

edit* and theres reason for it...cops don't pull over a mom driving a mini-van for "stopping past the cross walk". They pull over a car with tinted windows, and 4 teenage kids driving at 3 am.

That's brilliant! And also why some people performing criminal activites have figured out how to drive minivans and apply soccer ball stickers to them.

your point being? stop the obvious cars, not every single one. not every criminal drives a mini-van, it was just an example.

In my experience, a large percentage of minivans are driven poorly and overhang into crosswalks that I use. The police should be stopping these people for this crime.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
After having a friend get hit by a drunk driver, I am supportive of cops being able to pull you over to check if your drunk.

No offense, but it's always the people directly involved in incidents that become the worst purporters in the degradation of our civil liberties... and parents are usually the worst of the bunch (*ahem*MADD*ahem*). I don't see how knowing someone that was killed by a drunk driver is proper justification for the practice of unwarranted police checkpoints.

I suppose cops should just wait for any crime to happen rather than try and stop it beforehand. Makes more sense that way I guess.

edit* and theres reason for it...cops don't pull over a mom driving a mini-van for "stopping past the cross walk". They pull over a car with tinted windows, and 4 teenage kids driving at 3 am.

That's brilliant! And also why some people performing criminal activites have figured out how to drive minivans and apply soccer ball stickers to them.

your point being? stop the obvious cars, not every single one. not every criminal drives a mini-van, it was just an example.

Then I'm going to assume you support racial profiling, correct?

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

I have no issue with it as long as it is done politely and in the manner it sounds like the OP is complaining about. Many criminals have been apprehended and crimes have been solved on the pretext of minor traffic violations. It's a necessary evil. It is not like the cop made up an infraction, he saw one, and no matter how minor, it was still an infraction.

 

[NeoPTLD]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
I have no issue with it as long as it is done politely and in the manner it sounds like the OP is complaining about. Many criminals have been apprehended and crimes have been solved on the pretext of minor traffic violations. It's a necessary evil. It is not like the cop made up an infraction, he saw one, and no matter how minor, it was still an infraction.

Therefore you're saying it is ok to enforce certain law selectively only when he wants to stop someone for something else he can't establish a legal cause for?

Jaywalking is unlawful under a specific penal code. If the police consistently and evenly stops someone in pursuant to the penal code (hence law "enforcement" ), then I'm ok. Let's say there are two people jaywalking, one is someone they've been wanting to stop for something else, but couldn't establish a probable cause for, the other is someone they really don't care about.

You're saying it is ok to stop just one using "unlawful crossing" in order to obtain an excuse to stop him?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I completely agree with the OP.. but then again, I've been pushed around by a cop who said the girl I was with was going 62 in a 45 when she was going exactly 45.. and I asked him for his badge number and he got pissed at me.

Cops are just people.. the people in this thread that blindly trust them haven't been fvcked with by a crooked cop yet.

And the people that have had one bad experience think all cops are sh!t heads.

 

[Compton]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z

Both Officers SAID they searched me because I was a white kid in that neighborhood, and that they suspected me of buying crack...

Bahahahaha, that's the biggest load of BS ever.

No, it's not. This happens all the time.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

It does sound like a frivolous pull-over to me. The way I see it... there are enough laws on the books that it is simply impossible to enforce them all. Therefore, cops must pick and choose. But my problem is, they should choose to enforce more serious offenses more often, and less serious offenses less often. Either way, you'll get a situation where a cop doesn't always enforce law XYZ with everybody who violates it.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: NeoPTLD

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
I have no issue with it as long as it is done politely and in the manner it sounds like the OP is complaining about. Many criminals have been apprehended and crimes have been solved on the pretext of minor traffic violations. It's a necessary evil. It is not like the cop made up an infraction, he saw one, and no matter how minor, it was still an infraction.

Therefore you're saying it is ok to enforce certain law selectively only when he wants to stop someone for something else he can't establish a legal cause for?

Jaywalking is unlawful under a specific penal code. If the police consistently and evenly stops someone in pursuant to the penal code (hence law "enforcement" ), then I'm ok. Let's say there are two people jaywalking, one is someone they've been wanting to stop for something else, but couldn't establish a probable cause for, the other is someone they really don't care about.

You're saying it is ok to stop just one using "unlawful crossing" in order to obtain an excuse to stop him?

did he break the law? yes. then yes, it is okay. same reasoning applies to speeders. Often you will get pulled over when you are in a pack of speeders. They don't pull all of the over, just you. Deal with it.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
After having a friend get hit by a drunk driver, I am supportive of cops being able to pull you over to check if your drunk.

No offense, but it's always the people directly involved in incidents that become the worst purporters in the degradation of our civil liberties... and parents are usually the worst of the bunch (*ahem*MADD*ahem*). I don't see how knowing someone that was killed by a drunk driver is proper justification for the practice of unwarranted police checkpoints.

I suppose cops should just wait for any crime to happen rather than try and stop it beforehand. Makes more sense that way I guess.

edit* and theres reason for it...cops don't pull over a mom driving a mini-van for "stopping past the cross walk". They pull over a car with tinted windows, and 4 teenage kids driving at 3 am.

That's brilliant! And also why some people performing criminal activites have figured out how to drive minivans and apply soccer ball stickers to them.

your point being? stop the obvious cars, not every single one. not every criminal drives a mini-van, it was just an example.

Then I'm going to assume you support racial profiling, correct?

sorry for bumping "old" thread.....
i know this will fall on deaf ears....but anyway. I support the profiling of people who look like criminals. I don't care what color you are, if you walk,talk, and act like an idiot sh!thead then you deserved to be pulled over. People take racial profiling to the extreme as if every black or hispanic person is pulled over, regardless of age or gender, and in my personal experience it is not. The ones that are act like clowns most of the time, and deserve to be pulled over. I have personally seen just as many white kids pulled over as those of any other "color". "if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck, then it most likely is a duck." (or whatever that saying is)

And i dont blindly trust cops, i just dont blindy DIStrust cops as most of the posts here show.

 

[her209]

http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/15991leg20010719.html

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: her209
http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/15991leg20010719.html

well from glancing at that, it appears to be about data collection, which while in theory sounds like the solution, it is actually skewed as all hell.

If you patrol an area largely populated by "pick your favorite color" people, aren't your "stats" going to be overwhelmingly skewed to those with the larger population? And i'm sorry, but for me at least, you can't just list a few blatantly obvious racist accounts as a blanket statement for all police.

In the long run, this "data collection" nonsense will probably help weed out bad police, but it also hampers the good, honest ones from doing their job.

 

[DainBramaged]

How can you complain when you did, indeed, break the law and you didn't get ticketed?

 

[NowhereChupacabra]

All cops are pigs, its that simple.

---

Good bye.

AnandTech Moderator