The trouble with fighting the school system is that there's usually no legal recourse. For educational issues there's a meta-legal system set up with forms to fill out and hearings before an administrator and so forth, but no judges or courts. Just finding a lawyer who will listen to you takes months. The system is hamstrung. Fighting the law might be easier because at least there's a well-defined legal process.
Re: They see me rolling... they're hatin', patrollin'
NoNukes writes:
On the other hand, Percy tells us about doing things like resisting arrest vigorously because he has a kid in the car, when he could just tell the police about his kid. Apparently he learned that from this country's forefathers, or maybe Martin Luther King or Thoreau. Maybe from the Boston Tea Party.
Really? Do you think it is unreasonable for a policeman to want to compare your face to your picture ID. Requesting that you remove your sunglasses sounds like an entirely reasonable request to make during a minor traffic stop.
Sure, for purposes of identification it's perfectly reasonable, but ID was no longer in question when Sandra Bland was asked to put out the cigarette. ID had already been established, the ticket was already filled out, he was about to hand it to her. I was trying to put myself in the same situation as Sandra Bland, but I don't smoke, so I thought of sunglasses.
But if you don't like the sunglasses scenario, then lets try something else. Let's say I'm still wearing my sports cap and the officer asks me to remove it as he's about to hand me the ticket. I'm sure I'd be very surprised at the request and would certainly at least pause to think.
Or maybe you don't like that scenario, either. My radio would already be off so I could hear the officer, so he wouldn't ask me to turn off the radio. How about maybe I'm drinking a coffee and he asks me to put the coffee down. I'm sure I'd be very surprised at the request and would certainly at least pause to think.
But I think you're missing the reason behind these speculations, which is to try to imagine how oneself, an average law abiding citizen, might find oneself arrested. I've tried to find a scenario where I might be caught off-guard and surprised and where I might pause, which might be interpreted as failure to comply. Do you think it could possibly happen to you, that you could unwittingly put yourself in a situation where you could be arrested?
I've never encountered a policeman writing a ticket based on anything except an eye witness report of himself or another policeman. Did we discuss that here? Did we discuss any situations that constituted entrapment? Did some policeman trick you into making an illegal turn?
This is some weird combination of not reading the thread and amnesia and skepticism and ridicule and disagreement, so I'm not going to try to sort it all out. You're annoyed again. Get over it.
Your make a mockery of the founding principles you claim to be upholding.
The person repeatedly demonstrating no respect for or even awareness of founding principles has been you.
What you do is mouth off to some degree...
Sir, I do not mouth off. I raise very specific and concrete concerns.
If you want to really put a policeman in his place, go to court and press your case. Maybe you can set a legal precedent in your locality.
One can't fight warnings. With the one ticket I mentioned where I was going 90 mph, I really was going 90 mph. There would have been no point in fighting it in court, and even if I decided to fight it anyway there would not have been any opportunity to address the nonsensical comment from the officer that I objected to, about traffic going 55 mph.
I've been trying to talk about my concerns about the possibility that traffic stops for minor infractions can result in arrest. I am, as I've said from the beginning, concerned and dismayed, particularly for the minority community. There's a good editorial in today's NTY about DWB: On the Death of Sandra Bland and Our Vulnerable Bodies. These are the kinds of issues we should be talking about here.
I will agree that the police can make an unreasonable requests. You just picked a bad example when you chose sunglasses. Don't make more out of it than that. It is not a matter of me not liking your example.
To be more precise, I picked something that *you* think is a bad example. Don't pretend your opinions reflect some kind of general consensus. I explained why there was nothing wrong with it and you ignored the explanation and merely repeated your original claim. And independent of the quality of the example you seem to be missing the point, which was that this was just a personal exploration for me to try to find something that might help me understand what Sandra Bland was feeling when she was asked to put out her cigarette. It is how well I achieve something resembling that feeling that is pertinent, not whether my chosen example was perfect.
Let us say that you dont see any reason for removing the ball cap, but the policeman does see one? What ought to happen next? Maybe the policeman does not want to alert you to the reason? What happens when you refuse?
Wow, that's a tough one. In my scenario I said all I would likely do when confronted with an unexpected and seemingly extraneous request is pause to think. I can't imagine what might cause me to refuse. That seems very unlikely for me. If he asked me to open the trunk I might say something like, "I don't mind doing that, but can you tell me why you'd like to look in the trunk?" It would have to be an unusual request before I'd refuse. Hmmm. Say he asked me to hand him my keys. That would get a long, long pause. I'd definitely ask him why. What if he said he thinks I'm a flight risk, which is ridiculous and obviously contrived. Now I'm very concerned that I'm being set up. Now I fear that whatever I do he's going to escalate until something happens. Now what?
But again, what *I* might say or do isn't the point here. These are just exercises to try to get close to what Sandra Bland was feeling. The central issue concerns what someone has the right to say or do, and what I'm saying in this thread is that a person receiving a ticket has the right to express himself. However unwise that might be, they still have that right. Yes, they risk that an officer might get ticked off enough by what is said to purposefully escalate the situation, but that tells us more about the officer than anything else, and it does not in any way diminish the right to freedom of expression, within the reasonable constraints that are usually accompanied by the familiar example of not being allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Are you really going to refuse to admit that those are reasons to ask someone to remove their sunglasses?
It's as if you're some kind of amnesiac. I first replied, "Sure, for purposes of identification it's perfectly reasonable, but..." Right off the bat I acknowledged that you might have a point.
But go back to Message 97 and read what came after the "but" so you can finally, three attempts later, address my explanation for why your objection based upon establishing ID makes no sense if one is trying to set up a situation similar to the Sandra Bland case.
But asking people to remove sunglasses during identification is neither bizarre nor is it difficult to understand. The policeman might want to see if your eyes suggest that you are under the influence.
This seems inconsistent with your own advice to not proffer evidence to the police if you do not have to, and poking around the Internet, the consensus seems to be that you're under no obligation to remove your sunglasses but that not doing so may provoke suspicion and cause escalation. One comment I saw at a bulletin board by a criminal defense lawyer: "Legally you are probably on sound footing to politely say to the officer that unless it is required you prefer to keep your glasses on. Now practically it's probably not a sound tactic. Reality is that upsetting a police officer in the field comes with a price. The price depends on how professional the police officer is and how experienced. You draw the wrong police officer and you can find yourself spending a few hours appeasing a manufactured investigation."
But this is all beside the point. Better would be to read the first paragraph of Message 102 again, where I explain that coming up with perfect examples isn't the point. You're completely focused on what are at most minor and unimportant defects that make no meaningful difference and missing what's important.
What if he said he thinks I'm a flight risk, which is ridiculous and obviously contrived. Now I'm very concerned that I'm being set up. Now I fear that whatever I do he's going to escalate until something happens. Now what?
If a policeman is setting you up, what can you do about it at a traffic stop? What happens if you are wrong and you've simply misinterpreted the situation? When is your fear justified?
Sure, you could speculate all day. I posted a link recently to an article discussing how it isn't possible for anyone pulled over to know what's in the mind of the officer, and that the law is structured in ways that place people in impossible Catch-22 situations as they try to balance their rights against their wish to not be arrested.
I don't know if your judgment process is good or bad, and I don't know of your personal aversion to risk level, so I cannot tell you how to maximize your rights so you look the most like your founding fathers...
Calling it "mouthing off" for merely expressing one's opinions and making these denigrating references to arguments from basic principles isn't helping your credibility.
What I can tell you is that the current state of the law puts a lot of discretion in the hands of police who make traffic stops.
Yes, we know. That's what we're discussing here, the fact that being stopped for a minor traffic violation can result in arrest. What we've established pretty clearly so far is that if an officer is so motivated, any traffic stop for anyone could result in arrest. If an officer wants a reason to arrest you he has it within his power to create one, including, apparently, having no reason at all. It isn't an issue of whether police would reasonably use this power. The issue of concern is that they have this power, with all the accompanying potential for abuse.
In Sarah's case, I don't see the elements required for a Terry stop (which by the way is not an arrest), and i don't think she should have been ordered out of her car. I cannot recall right now whether Sandra declined a reasonably expressed order to get out of the car, and when the office became abusive.
Here's the YouTube video queued up to precisely the right spot just for you:
What would you have done when told to get out of the car if the policeman simply repeated his order without explanation?
Will you be soporifically nitpicking the response to pieces, or will there be a reasoned discussion centered on the actual topic?
This seems inconsistent with your own advice to not proffer evidence to the police if you do not have to, and poking around the Internet, the consensus seems to be that you're under no obligation to remove your sunglasses but that not doing so may provoke suspicion and cause escalation
Removing your glasses is no more a fifth amendment issue...
Are you okay? There was no claim that being asked to remove your glasses is a fifth amendment issue. This is completely out of the blue. It's as if you've lost track of the discussion. Don't you remember? I was trying to find something similar to being asked to put out a cigarette so that I could attempt to replicate how Sandra Bland might have felt so I could gauge whether it might be a request from an officer that I might refuse to carry out. It was Cat Sci who originally asked if I would put out the cigarette, so since I don't smoke I was trying to find some similar request.
The confusion continues in your final paragraph where you ask if I think not removing sunglasses is in the spirit of the Boston Tea Party, another thing never remotely implied, so I'll just ignore this post.
But you *are* worrying me. I don't often have such huge communication disconnects with people as I do with you, and I'm beginning to wonder what gives.
Sandra Bland Did Not Refuse to Put Out Her Cigarette
It just struck me that this discussion, both here and in the media, has been operating under the assumption that Sandra Bland refused to put out her cigarette, at which point she was ordered out of the car. But Bland did not refuse. Here's that part of the conversation:
TROOPER: "Do you mind putting out your cigarette, please, if you don't mind?"
BLAND: "I'm in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?"
TROOPER: "Well, you can step out now."
Sandra Bland didn't refuse to put out her cigarette. She only asked why she had to put out her cigarette.
Regarding Bland's attempt to record the arrest, Internet opinion seems divided about whether the officer had the right to ask Bland to put her phone down while she was being arrested. I lean toward allowing arrestees to record, agreeing with this from Did Sandra Bland Have a Right to Film Her Arrest?:
quote:In affirming a right to record, the 7th Circuit carved that line out of Bellotti and plunked it right down into Alvarez. When a state restricts the right to record, the court explained, it limits the stock of information we all draw from to debate public issues. By forcing bystanders and arrestees to turn off their cameras, police officers are essentially depriving the public of the key piece of information in any subsequent public debate.
And as has been pointed out, the eyeglasses is not a good match for the cigarette...
The sunglasses are a fine match for the cigarette if they enable me to achieve a similar state of mind as Sandra Bland. Had it been you with all the other issues you want to introduce that didn't occur to me then it would not not have been a good match, and you could not have achieved the same state of mind as Sandra Bland with the sunglasses scenario. But I could. Goal achieved. Mission accomplished. And, of course, the sunglasses scenario had absolutely nothing to do with fifth amendment issues nor with political representational issues.
This discussion has convinced me that I'm probably a better candidate than most for getting arrested at a routine traffic stop, which is something I was curious about. But while it's not exactly off-topic, it is taking the thread off its main point, which is that it should be incredibly difficult to get arrested during a routine traffic stop, but it's not, particularity if you're a minority.
One good idea might be to make it part of the responsibility of Internal Affairs to test officers in the field. I'm sure it would be eye opening. I wonder how many Internal Affairs personnel would refuse such assignments out of fear for their personal safety.
Re: Sandra Bland Did Not Refuse to Put Out Her Cigarette
NoNukes writes:
quote:TROOPER: "Do you mind putting out your cigarette, please, if you don't mind?"
BLAND: "I'm in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?"
TROOPER: "Well, you can step out now."
At this point, the order to step out of the car seems to me to be legal. An arrest is not justified. But things start to escalate here and immediately afterward. IMO, that is the interesting part of the discussion. Who would do anything other than get out of the car at this point?
If your answer is that you would ask for an explanation, what would the police need to say to get you to leave your vehicle?
I still like the sunglasses scenario for myself personally, because at that point it would never have occurred to me that the officer could possibly have good reasons for that request. So let's say the interaction went like this:
quote:TROOPER: "Do you mind removing your sunglasses, please, if you don't mind?"
PERCY: (pause) "I'm sorry?" (buying time to think)
TROOPER: "Please remove your sunglasses."
PERCY: (reacting slowly, moving hand very slowly toward sunglasses) "Uh..."
TROOPER: "Well, you can step out now."
PERCY: (incredibly surprised) "Huh?"
TROOPER: "Step out of the car." (opens driver's door)
PERCY: (now beyond shock) "What?"
TROOPER: "Step out of the car!" (grabs at me)
PERCY: "Okay. (exits vehicle) What's going on here?"
The trooper is clearly overreacting, but the law gives him the right to arrest me, possibly for resisting arrest since he had to open the door and grab at me, but apparently just the fact that he pulled me over for (let's say) not signalling a lane change is sufficient. The law should not give him this right.
When people have had a long and hard day and a co-worker is behaving like an idiot, internal governors prevent us from blowing up at them. We're going to have to see them tomorrow. But when an officer blows up during a traffic stop and arrests you for virtually no reason, nothing protects you. Especially if you're a minority. The law backs him, other officers will back him, and judges will back him. That's wrong.
But if you receive a warning you'll never be in a courtroom, so the roadside is your only opportunity to communicate to the officer what he's done that is wrong or said that is incorrect.
...
It isn't the consequences, it's the principles.
And you think that talking about it on the side of the road can have effects on the principles?
I think talking about it on the side of the road can have an effect, but not on the principles. I like the principles. I don't want to change the principles. I want to change the officer's thinking. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but someday. People mature and change in reaction to feedback over time, and I want to contribute to that feedback.
The sunglasses are a fine match for the cigarette if they enable me to achieve a similar state of mind as Sandra Bland.
Except that the police reaction may well be different and the reasonableness of your refusal will be judged differently as well.
Yes, of course. I already addressed that point precisely in Message 103 when I said, " I posted a link recently to an article discussing how it isn't possible for anyone pulled over to know what's in the mind of the officer, and that the law is structured in ways that place people in impossible Catch-22 situations as they try to balance their rights against their wish to not be arrested." Pulling that link out for you, it was Sandra Bland and the ‘lawful order’ problem.
I take it that you don't want to talk about how the issues that you think are important might not actually be, nor discuss whether or not racism is a driving factor in the problem?
I guess what I want to talk about is that I think it's wrong that a routine traffic stop can be criminalized. Traffic cops should have no more power than meter maids. If the guy gets troublesome or threatening, call for support from the real cops. If the guy takes off, call in his license plate to the real cops. If he's going over 100 mph or some other very flagrant violation, call in the real cops.
But the person pulling you over for failing to signal a lane change shouldn't have the power to arrest you. Even if you assault him. That person should call it in to the real cops and swear out a complaint for assault.
Hopefully this will all become academic in the next 20 or so years as cars become more and more automated, as NosyNed mentioned earlier. A friend just got a new car that vibrates the seat (or was it the steering wheel) when you move out of your lane without signalling. Of course, this only works on roads with visible painted lines.
Imagine a road system without posted speed limits, stop signs or traffic lights where car's computers negotiate passage wirelessly between themselves. Maintaining safe stopping distances would become a thing of the past as human reaction times become irrelevant. Highways could shrink the number of lanes because the lanes could be filled more efficiently, and automated rerouting of traffic would avoid traffic jams.
And, of course, traffic violations would become a thing of the past.
How does your proposal prevent traffic stops from becoming criminalized? The meter maid is just going to call in someone else if you disobey his orders.
The meter maid style traffic officer wouldn't have the right to issue orders, other than to request license and registration, and I guess proof of insurance. Not being blessed with the same powers as regular officers there would never be a request to put out a cigarette, never any potential to escalate.
If you feel this kind of traffic officer needs more power, make it financial. Add a check box to the ticket for non-cooperation that doubles the fines. I guess this has potential for abuse, too, but at least people won't end up in jail after a traffic stop.
How does that reduce arrests?
The goal isn't to reduce arrests. That's just a side effect. The goal is to reduce abuse of power.
™ Version 4.2