What's the deal with motor vehicle violations?

In the context of a courtroom, it would be. In the real-life context, going the speed limit would have been more dangerous.A police officer's job is to bridge the gap between real life and the court room. Being "professional" sometimes requires following the letter of the law, sometimes the spirit.

The problem is that they're also pretty good at manipulating the screeners - and the straight arrows who do the screening are pretty innocent to the possibility.

The difference is that the school system is aimed at middle-class white people; it's middle-class white people versus middle-class white people. The police, on the other hand, are middle-class white people against "them" - them often being lower-class black or brown people.

On a related note, Kitchener women say they were stopped by police for cycling topless. The officer (allegedly) lied about receiving complaints and then about why he stopped them.

Tell that to the gun nuts who think a gun is a defensive weapon. You have to shoot first.

I would use the word "authority" instead of "right" - and investing too much authority in the police is the beginning of authoritarianism. Frankly, I would rather see more cops killed and fewer innocent civilians killed by cops.

We already separate parking enforcement form traffic enforcement and general policing. Of course, parked cars generally don't have people in them. The people are the distinguishing factor, not the vehicles.

Stop galloping, Gish.

Whatever you call it, it's unnecessary. I'm not disagreeing with you.I was just pointing out why traffic enforcement is lumped in with crime enforcement instead of with parking enforcement. It's because the traffic law breakers are just as dangerous to the public as criminal law breakers and they're liable to be just as dangerous to police too.The police are not dealing with "us" and "them". We are all "them". If you want the police to treat you well, you have to let them treat "criminals" the same way - because they can't tell the difference.

Hogwash. A police officer in a traffic stop has no way of knowing whether the driver means him harm or not. Of course we do. We arrest suspected criminals and we lock them up like criminals and we have a whole court system to determine IF they are criminals. What magical powers do you think a police officer has to tell "us" from "them" before he asks for ID? All I'm saying is that a police officer needs to assume that every stranger is a potential danger until he DOES know who it is.

So Wyoming cops don't ask for license and registration when they pull you over for running the red light?

That's based on the premise that adding guns to a situation improves the situation. I would suggest that a police officer is more likely to defuse a situation rather than escalate it if he doesn't have the means to escalate it.

That premise is false. A gun is not a defensive weapon. If somebody "is shooting at you" you're most likely already dead. The only way to win a gunfight is to shoot first.But you're missing the point. Having guns makes police more likely to use violence - and sometimes when they use violence it's inappropriate. The culture of "self defense" that you're preaching is what causes innocent people to be killed by police.