|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What's the deal with motor vehicle violations? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
From the CNN article Video of Sandra Bland's arrest ignites firestorm of reactions:
quote: I don't know anything about the actual details of motor vehicle laws, nor about the differences between states, but I've always believed they were different from other laws. Am I correct in believing that a motor vehicle violation is not a misdemeanor, and certainly not a felony? What is it? And how is that, at least in Texas, the officer has the right to arrest you for motor vehicle violations as minor as "failure to signal"? I was pulled over for going 90 in a 55 mph zone a couple years ago. The officer was polite and professional but seemed intent on impressing upon me how heinous my violation was. I was only keeping up with traffic during rush hour and was just unlucky enough to be the first car that went by after he readied his speed gun. When he gave me the ticket he told me the speed limit was 55 and that I couldn't exceed that. I replied that no one goes 55, and he asked if that's what I would tell the judge. I replied, "I would tell him what is true," and the officer left it at that and returned to his car, but I suppose he could have escalated. He could have continued, "Are you saying anything I've said is untrue?" and what would I have said then? Had I replied, "You're implying that traffic goes 55, and it doesn't, not even in the slow lane," where would it have gone from there? I of course didn't go to court and challenge the ticket because I *was* going 90 in a 55 mph zone. I've been driving the same road to work for 30 years and got caught only once, so though it was a costly ticket I decided to think of it as just part of the cost of commuting. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I thought using the "Billy did it too!" defense went out after about the third grade.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
If Billy strictly followed the speed limit he may well have caused an accident.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Only if we do not treat the criminals as we should. There is no excuse I can think of for the continued practice of not enforcing traffic laws in the US. We are at the point where I think we need to ask if Americans are mature enough to be allowed to drive.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Percy writes:
In the context of a courtroom, it would be. In the real-life context, going the speed limit would have been more dangerous. The officer was polite and professional but seemed intent on impressing upon me how heinous my violation was. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined:
|
It is going to be very interesting in the next 5 to 10 years as autonomous vehicles become first allowed and then mandatory.
Presumably they will be programmed to follow the rules and not speed at all. If so we'll quickly discover that the speed limits that we use. Set to be simple and broad they are stupid. Around me are streets all at a 50 kph (30 mph) limit. For some of them in tight residential side streets that is much to high and in others it is much too low. The drivers fix this by driving at speeds that makes sense. I suspect that when we are no longer driving the cars but they are doing it there will be no need for any kind of speed limits at all. The cars will know what is efficient and safe for each circumstance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The speed limits down here are really strange; many urban street are signed at 55MPH (88kph) but then the same street crosses the invisible line into a different tiny town and it instantly reverts to 30MPH (48kph). Same street, same environment, often different maintenance though and always different enforcement.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And how is that, at least in Texas, the officer has the right to arrest you for motor vehicle violations as minor as "failure to signal"? That's not what she was arrested for. She was arrested for refusing to follow a lawful order - which was to get out of the car. She was ordered to exit the vehicle because she refused to extinguish a cigarette she was smoking while he was standing at her window questioning her. For the minor traffic violation he didn't even write a ticket, he had written up a warning. Anyways, as far as I know, if you're reasonably suspected of committing a crime then a cop can pretty much always arrest you. There is no"has to be this bad" rule for when they can and can't arrest you. And the courtroom is the time and place to discuss the particulars of your arrest, not on the side of the road.
Am I correct in believing that a motor vehicle violation is not a misdemeanor, and certainly not a felony? What is it? Yeah, I think they are their own thing: a motor vehicle violation. While going through a background check I was asked to list all the crimes that I had been accused of... except for traffic violations (that were less than $300, aka "minor").
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
A legal analyst at CNN says he doesn't know of any law that would allow him to force her to put out her cigarette, unless she was doing something inflammatory with it such as blowing smoke in his face.
He also said that when an officer feels threatened for any reason he can ask the driver to exit the vehicle. In this particular case the officer pretty obviously overreacted and inflamed rather than calming the situation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Cat Sci writes: And how is that, at least in Texas, the officer has the right to arrest you for motor vehicle violations as minor as "failure to signal"?
That's not what she was arrested for. She was arrested for refusing to follow a lawful order - which was to get out of the car. Note the thread title: What's the deal with motor vehicle violations?. This isn't about the Sandra Bland arrest, and I never mentioned it. What I was reacting to was this excerpt from the CNN article Video of Sandra Bland's arrest ignites firestorm of reactions:
quote: What I then asked was, "Am I correct in believing that a motor vehicle violation is not a misdemeanor, and certainly not a felony? What is it? And how is that, at least in Texas, the officer has the right to arrest you for motor vehicle violations as minor as 'failure to signal'?"
Am I correct in believing that a motor vehicle violation is not a misdemeanor, and certainly not a felony? What is it? Yeah, I think they are their own thing: a motor vehicle violation. Okay, a motor vehicle violation is not a misdemeanor, not a felony, but something else. But you can still be arrested for a minor motor vehicle offense, at least in Texas. If true, my reaction is dismay and concern. Now that you bring it up, a question does occur to me now about the Sandra Bland arrest. Texas is a "stand your ground" state. I think it's safe to say that the officer's behavior could be interpreted as provocative and then threatening, and his subsequent words ("I will light you up!") and actions (slammed her head, broke her arm) argue that that interpretation was right on the mark. I wonder if Bland had a "stand your ground" defense, or if the law specifically excludes standing your ground in all cases involving police officers. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What I then asked was, "Am I correct in believing that a motor vehicle violation is not a misdemeanor, and certainly not a felony? What is it? And how is that, at least in Texas, the officer has the right to arrest you for motor vehicle violations as minor as 'failure to signal'?" And my response to that was this: "Anyways, as far as I know, if you're reasonably suspected of committing a crime then a cop can pretty much always arrest you. There is no"has to be this bad" rule for when they can and can't arrest you. And the courtroom is the time and place to discuss the particulars of your arrest, not on the side of the road." Your source had this to say:
quote: .
Okay, a motor vehicle violation is not a misdemeanor, not a felony, but something else. But you can still be arrested for a minor motor vehicle offense, at least in Texas. If true, my reaction is dismay and concern. Why? Isn't that just par for the course? A cop can simply arrest you for almost anything. Being under arrest isn't a big deal, its a technicality. The courtroom is where you figure out if you should have been arrested or not.
I wonder if Bland had a "stand your ground" defense, or if the law specifically excludes standing your ground in all cases involving police officers. I don't think there's a blatant exclusion like that. The use of force against the person who is claiming the "stand your ground" defense had to be unlawful and unprovoked. The cop's use of force was both lawful and provoked, as far as I know. She provoked him to arrest her by refusing to obey a lawful order and then she provoked the escalation of force by resisting arrest, apparently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Cat Sci writes: A cop can simply arrest you for almost anything. Where is the boundary drawn between "almost anything" and the few things that aren't "almost anything"? What are the category of things that constitute "wrongful arrest"? Apparently, according to the law in Texas, someone pulled over for, say, a tail light out and who is perfectly polite can still be arrested. Relying on the police to use proper discretion is not having a great record of success for black people these days. Almost weekly in national headlines the police in this country demonstrate they cannot reliably wield this kind of power.
The cop's use of force was both lawful and provoked, as far as I know. She provoked him to arrest her by refusing to obey a lawful order... "Put out the cigarette" is a lawful order? I can see why he may object to cigarette smoke, but he was already being provocative and trying to push her buttons. First he starts probing why she's irritated, a warning sign sure to cause anxiety, then he gives an irrelevant command when all he has to do is hand her the ticket and tell her he's letting her off with a warning, there's no fine, she doesn't have to do anything, and to please be sure to signal lane changes in the future. He was purposefully prolonging the encounter. His own department has put him on desk duty because he violated protocols. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
"Put out the cigarette" is a lawful order? I can see why he may object to cigarette smoke, but he was already being provocative and trying to push her buttons. That probably is a lawful order. Yes it can be provocative to some. From what I understand the police department has admitted at least that officer did not follow their standards for professionalism. But that may not be all that helpful to the family.
First he starts probing why she's irritated, a warning sign sure to cause anxiety, then he gives an irrelevant command Things like nervousness and irritation are triggers that can allow the police to do a 'Terry' stop which consists of a pat down for weapons followed by an investigation/questioning. While Terry stops are legal, they are fairly discretionary. In the case of a person in a car, the police can certainly require you to exit your vehicle for the pat down. Let's be realistic. Police do sometimes stop people for the purpose of investigating criminal behavior. And minor violations often trigger the stops. The law on Terry stops allows the officer to make subjective judgments that can lead to pat downs etc. that are not considered to be arrests, but do require that you obey orders. Nervousness and reluctance to follow orders are going to be found to legitimately escalate the officer's suspicions, and if the whole incident happens in a high crime area, then the officer is going to able to justify an increased level of suspicion.
Relying on the police to use proper discretion is not having a great record of success for black people these days. Almost weekly in national headlines the police in this country demonstrate they cannot reliably wield this kind of power. Yes, the whole scenario has an extremely high potential for abuse. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Where is the boundary drawn between "almost anything" and the few things that aren't "almost anything"? Well, there's got to be a crime - but I figured that was implied. After that you start getting into probable cause. Is that what you're asking about?
What are the category of things that constitute "wrongful arrest"? The category of things you can be arrested for is "crimes". If they think that you've committed a crime, then you can be arrested. I don't think there are categories for crimes that determine whether or not you can be arrested for them, but I could be wrong.
Apparently, according to the law in Texas, someone pulled over for, say, a tail light out and who is perfectly polite can still be arrested. I thought that was everywhere, not just Texas. If the cops think you've committed any crime, then they can arrest you. As I said, its just a technicality. It doesn't really mean anything.
"Put out the cigarette" is a lawful order? No, "get out of the car" is.
I can see why he may object to cigarette smoke, but he was already being provocative and trying to push her buttons. Okay, and she was being a sassy bitch. *shrugs*
First he starts probing why she's irritated, a warning sign sure to cause anxiety, then he gives an irrelevant command when all he has to do is hand her the ticket and tell her he's letting her off with a warning, there's no fine, she doesn't have to do anything, and to please be sure to signal lane changes in the future. Cops are all about trying to get you to fuck up and get more charges. They are trained to lie to us. They are trained to trick us into giving up our rights so they can exploit us (Have you heard of the "running No's"?). They use fear tactics to scare you into submission. They are just downright dirty rotten scoundrels.
He was purposefully prolonging the encounter. His own department has put him on desk duty because he violated protocols. Probably solely because it was caught on video and the public saw it. Otherwise, he prolly would have gotten a pat on the back for good police work.
Almost weekly in national headlines the police in this country demonstrate they cannot reliably wield this kind of power. There's no accountability. We need it to be more like the Sheriff program - you have an elected official that picks the cops and then when the cops get out of hand you elect someone else to pick new one. The People have no way of doing that with police departments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
"Anyways, as far as I know, if you're reasonably suspected of committing a crime then a cop can pretty much always arrest you. There is no "has to be this bad" rule for when they can and can't arrest you. The standard for an arrest is probable cause which is a higher standard that reasonable suspicion. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024