What's the deal with motor vehicle violations?

That's exactly the point Jon regarding Canipe. Note that it is not necessary to assign complete blame or even any responsibility to the police in order to point out the danger lurking in a police/citizen interaction.On the other hand, in other of the situations we can see that the police could have taken other actions and still protected themselves while investigation. Jones was ordered to get his license. Yes it is true that he would have been better off disobeying the order. But that also points out the danger involved in police/citizen interactions. Even obeying orders might get you shot. Let's also note that the policeman in that incident was charged with assault. I'll also note thatYou've completely ignored/missed the point, which is not that all blame belongs to the police even when the citizen is unarmed. That's not a great summary of what happened dumbass. I don't know whether you are a liar or an idiot. Canipe did nothing inappropriate whatsoever. His action was complete innocent as was that of Jones. In fact Jones was following police orders. Lee was shot in the back. The police perception that he was pointing a gun at them was wrong, but possibly understandable given the dim lighting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Lee_(actor)

quote:

---

On December 4, 2000, the results of Lee's autopsy were released. The autopsy determined that Lee was struck once in the back of the head and three times in the back. The LAPD had reported that Lee had been facing Hopper aiming this alleged replica gun at Hopper. The facts of the entry wounds were suppressed by the LAPD for as long as possible.

---

Whichever you turn out to be, liar or complete idiot, I don't see any reason to bother with your blather any further. Clearly, even obeying police orders promptly does not guarantee you won't get shot. In some cases, like Tamir Rice's case, you won't even be given the time to do so.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link.

No shit sherlock. Perhaps that's what I was saying when I posted this: Seems to be very little difference between what I posted and your final realization. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Maybe a little of both. Also, there seems to be little point to making an official complaint that a policeman tried to rape you or beat you when the entire incident is on video and vindicates the officer. So maybe a few less bogus or unresolved complaints.I would argue that police have appropriate authority. They need to be able to shoot folks sometimes. It is the discretion that is often lacking. If a policeman takes a short cut that saves himself some time (e.g. incautiously approaching a vehicle or giving sloppy orders) and then shoots his way out of any suspected trouble, then the policeman is at fault when the result is a dead, unarmed citizen. Even if the citizen is selling cigarettes illegally.I watched a video on youtube this week of police encountering a mentally ill person armed with a screw driver. The police got within a couple of arm lengths of the man and shot him dead when he lunged at them the screw driver. Yes, the police might have been stabbed, but why the heck were they that close?The police continued to yell at the man to drop the screw driver even though he was dead.Why did the police drive right up on Tamir Rice and then start blazing away? Does it make sense to drive into mutual point blank range unless your intent is to shoot first?

I think these ideas are incredibly naive. Even if the gun is kept in the trunk, when the police encounters you at a traffic stop (meaning you, the non-criminal, innocent driver) the first step ought to be to get the gun out of the trunk. So the choices when he faces you are probably between gun on hip or gun in hand.Unless you somehow prevent the policeman from thinking he's in a quick draw situation at a traffic stop, I'm not sure putting the gun in the trunk does anything except get policemen shot by bad guys.

Exactly. There is no such thing as government "rights". Governments have responsibilities and authorities. The policeman's rights are the same as those of any citizen. The difference is that we charge the policeman with investigating trouble as a responsibility and give them the authority to shoot in some situations in which citizens cannot.

About five years ago, the First Circuit Court of appeals ruled that statutes that prevent audio and video recordings cannot be used against people videotaping arrests. That ruling is binding on courts in NH. But the police continued arresting people for that in NH and Mass for some time afterwards. In other circuits such arrests continue even today.If you do record police, just make sure you stay out of their way. You probably cannot claim that your First Amendment rights require that you be allowed the best possible angle for filming.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, Percy, I thought he was talking about putting the gun in the trunk.What I am saying is that I think it understandable that police approach an unknown person at a traffic stop with a gun in their holster. On rare occasions which cannot be predicted, as is evidenced by recent news events, a gun is needed. Yes, they sometimes do need them. Unfortunately, this country is chock full of guns and they are occasionally in the hands of bad guys at traffic stops. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well, no. Most of us don't go poking around trouble and we don't walk up on strangers cars investigating. Policeman are supposed to do that.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your position is pretty speculative. What comes first, the chicken or the egg?If I as an ordinary citizen saw what looked like a drug deal happening in a parked car, I would not go anywhere near it. I would not accept that simply because I do not have arrest powers, that the participants would not care if I saw something that would incriminate them. Maybe if there were no war on drugs, all of the guns would go away? Still, quite speculative.Quite frankly, I don't have any problem with police conducting investigations at traffic stops based on reasonable suspicions. That may be because I live in a smallish city with an inordinately high volume of violent crime. And often those crooks seem to have guns because they need to shoot each other. But I do want the police to be held responsible for their screw ups when they gun someone down when the truth is that the police have employed a bad tactic or made some errors in judgment that got them into trouble.And it is not just traffic stops that are the issue, it is incidents like the shooting of Tamir Rice, and the choking out of Eric Garner that I find problematic. Currently, there is zero motivation for police not to shoot whenever they feel the least bit fearful. And apparently no way to get the city to take you seriously absent something like a large Rodney King style riot.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Would you accept a ticket for DUI or reckless driving that you received in such a fashion?

The idea behind DUI is to catch drunks before they hit somebody. Drunks are dangerous long before they start swerving and careening. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's an entirely different situation with completely different dynamics. It is pretty easy to avoid the meter maid even if you were fearful that they could arrest you.On the other hand, you don't have that kind of control when you are stopped unexpectedly while driving. Completely avoiding the person giving you a traffic ticket is not an option. Well it does not return the dead person to life, but holding the police responsible is not less of a deterrent than is any punishment for crime and I expect that such a situation would change police behavior towards the rest of it. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Probably depends on lots of variables including the reliability of the technology and what responsibilities the law tasks drivers with in self driving cars. The answer could vary from 'treat car owners like passengers' to 'treat the driver as if he were fully responsible for safety even if he never touches the wheel'.Does it matter if the driver falls asleep? Maybe, or maybe not.

The context of ringo's statement was the situation for drivers at traffic stops.To wit: In most states, yeah you are required to produce your driver's license (and registration and proof of insurance) when you are stopped at a traffic stop and are requested to do so by police. If Wyoming does not do that, they are an unusual state. Yeah, if you mean POS places like Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, and Nevada each of which require you to identify yourself when asked by police. Three of those (i.e. Arizona, Indiana, and Louisiana apply criminal penalties just for refusing to give your name when asked by police.Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia

I'm not an idiot, Percy. I do get your point. That's why instead of just saying, no you are wrong, without saying why, I instead provided an argument or two in support of my opinion that the situation with traffic stops might be different, but instead of addressing those arguments you just revert to 'no you don't get it'. What's the point of that kind of discussion?And no, you cannot avoid a traffic maid. The interaction between you and the traffic maid is going to be face to face. You can always decide not to confront the meter maid.Similarly, the second part of your post makes little sense to me. Right Percy. That's why I suggested a change in policy, namely actually punishing police for bad decisions that lead to having to shoot somebody who should not have been shot, rather than excusing them as we currently do after they've created a killing zone. If the law did allow that rather than excusing police, then police would want training on how to stay alive and out of jail.Perhaps you could respond that you don't think locking up the police is much of a deterrent, but you don't even bother instead you pull up something I clearly agree is not the way to go and tell me that riots are not a deterrent.Perhaps this discussion has gone one too long. I've probably missed some of your points too. But your response here seems to miss my point without advancing a point of your own.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.