What's the deal with motor vehicle violations?

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. 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").

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:

---

"The fact is an officer can make an arrest anytime ... you run a red light, parking ticket, anything like that," Houck said.

---

. 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 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.

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? 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. 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. No, "get out of the car" is. Okay, and she was being a sassy bitch. *shrugs* 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. 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. 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.

Are they're any crimes that you can commit that you can not, technically, be arrested for?

I used those quote to indicate that I meant the word literally.It is a crime, by definition, because it is punishable by the state. So it is an infraction.

quote:

---

In every state, crimes are put into distinct categories. The categories are usually "felony," "misdemeanor," and "infraction."

---

I think where this comes into play:

quote:

---

Technically, a driver can get arrested in Texas for simply failing to use a turn signal.

---

is that a cop can technically arrest you for an infraction in Texas. I'm under the impression that's par for the course.But it is not punishable by jail time, so there's really no reason to arrest you for it, and you can just pay the fine regardless, so they typically don't.But they could (on a technicality). I did think that "crime" (literally) was implied, just FYI. I wasn't totally sure that every single crime could be arrested for, though, so I said 'almost'.Anyways, if a cop doesn't like your looks, and decides to place you under arrest, then I'm under the impression that at that point it is a lawful order that you have to comply with (regardless of it being frivolous). If you think that's bullshit and start resisting that arrest, then that is a crime that is serious enough for them to start using force. That begins the snowball of escalation that they will not back down from. So it all depends on what you're arrested for, in how they're going to pursue it. And also how you are reacting to it. The actual arrest itself, though, is a legal technicality. Its just a procedure they follow. You can make it cost you your life depending on how you handle it, so yeah, in that regard it can become a big deal. The bail amount depends on the crime, and I'd bet that being charged with a failure to signal is going to be a lot cheaper than being charged for resisting arrest (along with whatever else they can throw on there).But the arrest, itself, is just part of the legal process, and in that sense it is just a technicality. I'm not trying to say that this cop wasn't a dick, and we both can understand not wanting cig smoke in your face, but when she said that she didn't have to put her cig out because she was in her car, I get why the response to that was "get out of the car". Yeah?I mean, you don't beat a dick by being a dick - especially when you know they can out dick you (seriously, they have weapons and armor). Yes, he was trained specifically on how to do exactly that.They seem to think that if there actually is an additional crime, then convicting that is more important than not fucking "the criminal" (scare quotes) over in the process of investigating the potential any-crime. That is what should cause you dismay and concern.Not the fact that "you can be arrested for a traffic ticket". I'll always pardon naivet. The difficulty is not in the technical aspects of "ticketing" and "arresting" (literally), it is in the approach and attitude of the police departments.They are training to trick us into revoking our rights so that they can stumble upon additional crimes that we may be committing, or even cause us to actually commit addtional crimes that they can subsequently charge us for.We don't need that. It is not easy for us to do anything about that. Therein lies the problem.There is another side to it, though. Municipalities do want a police presence. But fucking people over isn't cool.The Chief of Police is usually appointed by the Mayor, and the Chief is essentially in charge of employing the cops. So if the cops are dicks its hard for The People to affect that when it means electing a whole new mayor. That's why I favor the Sheriff system, it's more direct.So the cops are fucking people over more and more, as you touched on. Part of the problem is that some people already have contempt for the cops, and that starts the whole situation off on the wrong foot. You may very well be justified in your contempt, but you don't beat a dick by out dicking them - especially when you know they can out dick you (weapons and armor).Another part of the problem is ignorance of the legal technicalities. Yes, perhaps a cop can arrest you for an infraction. But the side of the road is not the place to have that discussion. If you simply accept the arrest for what it is, a technicality, and then proceed through the legal system and face the charge that you've been given, be it failure to signal or, hopefully not, resisting arrest, then you don't give them the ability to escalate the situation further. Yes. And underneath that is the increase in the militarization of the police force and their policies.We all know about suicide by cop, which is disgusting enough in itself, but there is also "swatting" now, where a kid got a really hefty sentence for getting a swat team to storm an acquaintance of his:http://nationalreport.net/...-old-swatted-domestic-terrorismThat's a serious crime in my opinion, but that it is so easy to commit is what bothers me.

I'm not sure it is character flaws so much as it is the training and protocols that the police departments push. Obviously, cops are not flawless people, but they do typically just follow procedures.I think that a perfect android following their procedures to the letter would still end up with a lot of the same problems that we have today.They are supposed to push for finding additional crimes in addition to the minor one that initiated the stop, according to their training. They do it in a way that causes people to "fight back" which itself is seen as a crime and is then pursued. Then people (rightfully) think they are being skrewed over, so they fight back even more, and that just escalates things towards violence.

quote:

---

I turn left anyway and am pulled over. When the officer hands me the ticket he informs me that turning left at a "no left turn" sign is illegal, and of course I know that and feel I was only forced to do so to avoid being forced onto the interstate by their unintelligible signage, and I just snapped. I literally begin yelling at him, telling him that they know how confusing their signs are, and so they just lurk somewhere out of sight waiting for all the drivers who don't figure it out in time, that it has nothing to do with safety at one in the morning, that there's not another car in sight and hasn't been in the entire time we've been sitting here while he wrote this ticket, that he saw how slow we were going and knew we were confused by the signs. In other words, it was entrapment (the town didn't control the signage, the state probably did, but the town was taking full advantage of it), my reaction of outrage was (at least to me) fully understandable, but again, I wonder how close to the line I came.

---

See, that's the exact wrong way to go about it. The side of the road is the wrong place to make your case, that should happen in court. You should never argue with the cop about the ticket, you argue with the judge.And that's a big part of the problems with violence with police that we have. People want to sit there and debate with the cop about how they shouldn't be getting a ticket. As things get heated, violence emerges. And the cops will never back down.You can prevent it, though, by simply accepting your ticket and not cooperating with any further investigation. "You giving me a ticket for speeding?, okay, thanks, have a nice day, am I free to go?""Where are you heading? Do you have any drugs in the car?""I've received my ticket for my infraction. Am I free to go?""Where are you coming from?""I don't see how that's relevant to the speed I was driving. I have my ticket, is this stop completed? Can I get going now?"Just take your ticket and get the hell out of there as soon as possible. You can fight the ticket later at the appropriate time and place. Hell, I'll one-up you: We don't even need guys patrolling around making sure that we're obeying all the traffic laws. Not that there aren't any traffic areas at all that would benefit from direct observance, though.But in general, they can be more like the fire department. Just sit around and wait for people to call you when they need you.We don't need people following us around waiting for us to slip up, so they can then try to trick us into revoking our rights and/or committing additional crimes.But police work is also lucrative, so we're boned. And The People can't do anything about it. The whole system is fucked.

More likely: "I'm a little behind on my quota this month, this spot is guaranteed to get me a couple more tickets." I doubt that and would bet that he knew exactly what he was doing. That's cute His job is to hand out tickets and his performance is measured. Why would he make himself look worse at doing his job? The side of the road during a traffic stop is not the time and place to have this discussion. Oh, they can and they would. And you could be killed in the process, like Eric Garner. If that happened then I think that police violence would be less severe. You don't have to answer any questions, and you have the right to not say anything that would incriminate yourself. But you do have to follow orders. I'm pretty sure it is. "For safety" is always an available excuse if they need one.¹ You shouldn't approach a cop, that can be seen as aggression. Let them approach you. You might get choked out or tazed, or even shot.From Message 33No I didn't, that was Jon. No, she wasn't. She was arrested for refusing to follow a lawful order to get out of the car. 1) From there:

quote:

---

During a traffic stop, a police officer has the right to ask a driver to get out of the car even for a non-arrestable offense, as a way of securing his own safety. The officer has almost complete discretion and the driver is legally obligated to get out when asked. He has control over the location of drivers, Mr. Weisberg said. It is equal to an officer patting you down to see if you have a gun.

---

Well, institutionalized racism is a hot topic these days.Anything resembling it is gonna be exploited.If the exact same situation that happened to Sandra Bland had happened to a white guy, then I don't think our awareness of it would have been limited to that of Carl Moyle's (who I hadn't heard of until you mentioned).I suspect it would be less, but the dichotomy you're painting is a stretch.Oh, and nobody buys newspapers anymore

It also wasn't videotaped. And didn't occur during a time of scrutiny against the cops. The obvious conclusion here is that those people aren't somebody.

No, you don't have to answer questions. You have no legal duty to answer any question at all. You always have the right to remain silent.You may have to identify yourself if you are detained, but I'm not sure. You can refuse consent to the search, but you can't physically stop them from searching. I don't see how that follows. Sorry, lawful orders must be followed.Since he couldn't arrest her for not putting out her cig, he gave her a lawful order to exit the vehicle, which is something he could arrest her for refusing to do.You don't have to follow every conceivable order, you have to follow the lawful ones. You could refuse to tickle his balls if a cop ordered you to. If he then decides to put you under arrest for that, then you do have follow even though its frivolous. She was subjected to violence for refusing to cooperate. If she had gotten out of the car and cooperated, then she wouldn't have been subjected to violence.

That's right. There's two parts to it.Avoiding trouble as in not going to jail.And avoiding trouble as in not getting physically hurt.If you want to avoid going to jail, then you should cooperate and answer questions that don't incriminate you and you should provide the least amount of information possible.If you are being placed under arrest, then you should stop all communication whatsoever to limit the arrest to the minimum amount of charges. Cops are supposed to inform you why you have been pulled over before they ask you anything. If a cop asks you for your license before telling you why you were pulled over, you have the right to ask him why you were pulled over before you comply with his request.If they ask you if you know why you were pulled over, the answer should always be 'No'. There's a difference between the reasons that lead up to the arrest, and the crime that was charged for the arrest. I think we're miscommunicating across those.I don't think he would have arrested her if she had put out her cig. The crime he was saying that he was arresting her for was refusing to get out of the car, which he ordered because she did not put out her cig. Yup, and that's why I say to just follow the orders. The time and place to determine if the order was lawful is in the courtroom after you have been arrested, not after you have been given the order but before you comply with it. Then you're starting to resist, and that's an additional charge and a reason for them to escalate towards force/violence. I don't think so. There was no threat of violence before she refused to cooperate.

Hell yeah there's something seriously wrong, its the entire paradigm of our police departments. Just because you know that you were speeding doesn't mean that speeding is what they pulled you over for."Oh, well I pulled you over for the tail light that is out. But thank you for admitting to speeding, here's two tickets". (little bit of sarcasm there)And don't forget, they are trained on how to lie to you and it is part of their protocol. And you have the right to refuse to say anything that can incriminate you. I don't think it was bad enough to indicate that he intended to harm her.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say that shouldn't ever talk to the cops. The key to doing it is being courteous, even when they are trying to stomp on your rights.I've always chatted it up with them every time I've been pulled over. I do what I can to be nice and help along with whatever process we need to go through to get through the stop. I admitted to the crime they accused me of, because the were right about me doing it, and I responded to any irrelevant questions with directing back to how we can get to me getting a ticket for my violation so I could go about my day. Basically: "Yeah, you got me, no, what do I have to do for this ticket now?"I joked with one about how awesome his hiding spot on the overpass was and how I didn't even see him until he started moving and then I instantly knew I was gonna be pulled over. He told me that he was allowing us 10 over (75 in a 65) and that I was going 78, and then he handed me my ticket.The one I didn't readily admit to was a minor lane usage violation in the city that I tried to excuse my behavior from for being from the other state where that wasn't illegal. He didn't care and ticketed me anyways.But I've gotten more warnings than actual tickets. I always have all the proper paperwork, and everything checks out, so yeah, they've come back with warnings instead of a ticket a few times. Now, I do also personally know a handful of people who work in law enforcement (none of which have pulled me over). And the system isn't filling our prisons up with a bunch of preppy middle-class white guys, so there's that.Anyways, if they're charging you with a minor violation, even if you think its unfounded, then its best to just accept it and move on. The courtroom is the place to make your case. If the cop has already made up his mind about issuing the ticket, then there's no point in arguing with him about it on the side of the road. That is where you should just shut up and not say anything that doesn't help in moving towards the end of the encounter.Part of the paradigm that is the problem is that the departments are training the cops to fuck the people over and get more convictions out of them. It is compounded by people not know what rights the cops have and what rights they have. That and how difficult it is for The People to have any influence over the people who are policing them. I'm not convinced that the problem lies in the police officers, themselves, as they are usually following a lot of protocols and procedures. But as we've been saying, they are people too and we can't expect them to be droids. We have to cut them a little slack and do what we can to keep it cool, even though the paradigm they are under is trying to fuck us over.So I think the best thing is to inform people of how you should be responding to the cops. It sounds like you get it and I'm sure you've been polite. You'd prolly "put out your cig" for them, no?Aside from staying courteous, is realizing that getting the ticket, itself, just like being arrested, is a technicality in the whole process. Hell, look at it this way: the side of the road is one of the most dangerous places that you could choose to have a discussion.Even if you don't get to have your personal little revolution because you have to censor yourself, that's worth not escalating the situation in the wrong place and time in a fruitless endevour that's not going to make any difference to the system. Your "speaking your mind" could eventually catch up with you, but I'm sure that you'll play nice.So, I have gotten a couple tickets and for those I called a ticket lawyer's office and had them turned into non-moving violations. They went to court for me and paid extra for them to change it, I got a letter informing me of the parking ticket that I had been convicted of and paid for. Along with the lawyer's fee it cost roughly double that of the violation, a couple hundred dollars each, but I think the benefit is worth the cost.Not everybody has that luxury, but if the ticket actually was wrong, then they won't be able to convict you in court. And if you did do it, then they got you and you should pay your fine. Its best to keep that at a minimum by accepting the first one they give you and not escalating it. If you really do think it is wrong then you prove that in court, not argue about it on the side of the road.And geez, if it is a warning that you don't even have to go to court for, then there isn't any consequence worth arguing against!

I think it should be for you because you should understand that it is neither the time nor the place to have that discussion. Later at the courtroom is much better. Do you think the methods that they employ have been designed to alienate any races of people?Otherwise, I think you have an undue request.The disproportion of a race being alienated by these processes doesn't imply that the race is what is causing the process to alienate them.If I am right, that people not knowing what rights the cops have and what rights they have is compounding the problem, then a significant cause to it could be a lack of the education provided to the race. If that is causing them to have a general ignorance of the rights that both parties have, then that could be allowing the prosecution side to gradually exploit, for profit, a group of people that they fall under for other reasons than the process, itself, exploiting their race.That prosecution side are people who are influencing the policies that the individual cops are being demanded to follow, and that would mean that its not really that the cops, as persons, are racists that are causing the problem. Its higher up, and the whole thing starts at the paradigm level, in my opinion.Given that's practically unchangeable, by The People, and that the individual cops aren't the people to argue with, then I'm sticking with recommending a very careful approach to interactions with law enforcement during traffic stops.Where careful means staying polite, I think that actually has been for you.

From Message 88: ... And you think that talking about it on the side of the road can have effects on the principles?From Message 89: Gotcha, thanks. The article you linked to in Message 98, that you said shows "the kinds of issues we should be talking about here", seems to say otherwise:

quote:

---

Law enforcement officers see only the color of my skin, and in the color of my skin they see criminality, deviance, a lack of humanity. There is nothing I can do to protect myself, but I am comforted by the illusion of safety.

---

quote:

---

She knew and stated her rights but it did not matter. Her black life and her black body did not matter.

---

quote:

---

In America, it is traditional to destroy the black body it is heritage. I would take this bold claim a step further. It is also traditional to try and destroy the black spirit.

---

To say that these traffic violation issues are America trying to destroy black spirit misses the actual issues that need to be addressed.I honestly do not think that this is an issue of race in particular. And I agree with you that it is not intentional.To say that the issues we should be talking about are the ones in that article completely misses the point that I am trying to make here.That this is an issue of a lack of education in how to deal with an authority figure trying to stomp all over your rights and that the police do this to everybody all the time.If everyone learned the best ways to repond to these situations while you are in them, then I don't think we'd see the kind of disparities that we do see regrading particular races and how they are treated by the cops. What evidence do you base the probability of racial bias on? I don't think so. The discriminated group is "The People". If a lack of education has resulted in one race being affected more, then eliminating that lack of education would alleviate that effect.If the disparity that one race is seeing is a result of not having strategies for dealing with police behavior, then getting them up to speed with that could help solve the problem of that perceived racial bias.It doesn't address the issue of the whole police paradigm to begin with, but that issue effects all of us together and not just one race in particular.