What's the deal with motor vehicle violations?

For a regular person it is.But the police are not so limited.The police have the right to shoot first (otherwise what good would they be?), and that's something people should remember when they interact with cops.

Okay.Let's pick one and examine it.Your choice.

OK how about the first one on the list for today but what are we looking for? Evidence that the police are people and are prone to errors in judgment? That there are some bad eggs in the mix or evidence that they generally have way too much authority? Or maybe evidence that the police routinely lie in order to protect their fraternity. Are you really disputing the fact that there is a problem?What we should really look at is how the addition of a body camera can reduce the use of force by something like 60%. Are the citizens suddenly more compliant or are the monitored police suddenly behaving as if they are accountable for their actions?

Hi NN!I've been away a few days and am catching up, so I'll just say thanks for those additional details you mentioned about Lewinski. They were very informative (and worrisome).--Percy

Hi PT,I am, as I mentioned to NN, catching up, so maybe this comment doesn't fit the current discussion, but while reading your post it struck me that you could, at an undetailed level, divide people into two groups.There are those like myself who grew up sheltered and naive in the suburbs and whose contact with the police was confined to Andy of Mayberry reruns, and who therefore believe that police are polite and rational and helpful and all these other fine qualities, amply qualified to to handle any situation. My actual experience with police, exclusively from traffic stops, tells me I'm wrong, but I hold the idyllic stereotype in my mind anyway.And then there are those who understand that the police can be a threat to one's own safety and well-being. They know it's not as bad here as a 3rd world country, but they realize that getting involved with the police can be a mixed bag.I'm reminded now of something that happened in the nearest city around 15 years ago. In a man's apartment a policeman was abusive while inquiring of the whereabouts of the man's son. The man had a security camera with sound in his apartment and took the tape down to the police department to complain. He was arrested for recording without having posted a notice that there was a security camera in operation. Made local headlines for a couple days and was in the news for a week. I think the man eventually got off with a fine, and no action was ever taken against the officer. How times have changed regarding video recording.--Percy

Today's Morning Edition on NPR included a story about an architectural college in New Orleans that takes on projects in disadvantaged areas of the city. One comment stood out to me. While talking about how much students have to learn about working on projects in disadvantaged areas and getting along with the community one professor said, "Don't drive a Lexus to a disadvantaged area."This struck home because for the past few days I've been driving a Lexus around disadvantaged areas. I felt as self-conscious as a dandy at a pig roast. I stayed at a motel that may as well have been named Red Neck City, with plentiful pickup trucks and spontaneous parking lot tailgate parties, and there *were* stares as I drove past all this in my wife's Lexus (7 years old; my own car is a BMW but is 19 years old and not appropriate for long trips - when we buy a car we buy upscale and new and hold it for a long time - my previous car was purchased new and was 17 years old and still going strong when I had to stop driving it because a left leg injury left me unable to handle the clutch). I was thankful each morning I woke up and the Lexus was still there and in one piece.So yes, I have experienced the positive side of "being an older Caucasian in a nice car" when pulled over by police, particularly by local police (the staties seem a nervous bunch), but there's the flip side in disadvantaged areas where you stand out like a sore thumb and feel like a mobile invitation to theft and vandalism. Even when I was outside the car I felt self-conscious just because of my clothes, which are old and inexpensive but definitely not a style that blended in.If anyone's wondering why this odd journey to what felt to me like ruin and poverty, I have recently and unintentionally but of necessity become the manager for two 2-unit rental properties purchased years ago by relatives whose dreams of a real estate empire turned to nightmares because managing real estate is a lot harder than it looks, particularly when your meager financial means force you to target low-priced properties that need constant attention.But my perspective is slanted by my background. What looks to me like decline and disadvantage is merely where much of America probably lives. The tenants I met were, it seemed, happy with accommodations that to me looked like dumps, with ugly carpets and squeaky tilted floors and narrow stairways with narrow steps and low ceilings and poor lighting and ad-hoc heating and no air conditioning.Apologies, I'm way off topic, but I needed the outlet.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Ah, the heart of the matter!For law enforcement, pulling out your gun and firing it at the suspect is the highest level of escalation. There is no level above that. But in too many instances the escalation to this highest level seems instant, ill-advised and inappropriate. I actually liked the Tamir Rice example, because it is an example of an officer firing his weapon fatally at a suspect a few seconds after arriving at the scene. If this is what police training teaches then it is wrong, because the fundamental police mandate is to protect the public, and such training places the public in greater, not lesser, danger. Yes! Yes!--Percy

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.

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.

Yeah, but you're just passing through Mornings are best--the worst predators are nocturnal.Your white middle-class privilege probably has been evidenced most where you noticed it least: the times you weren't stopped--tail light out, failure to signal lane change, failure to signal pulling away from curb, driving a few miles over the limit, driving slowly down a block where you don't appear to belong...I've often mulled the irony of modern police bemoaning the strength of the "no ratting" meme in our inner cities, because the cops created it. That's where I grew up, and we knew that like as not the cops would show up with the attitude of aggressive contempt they reserved for the poor, especially blacks. We were split between low income whites of Appalachian descent and black families from down south.We clashed with and insulted each other in all color combinations, but nobody called in noise complaints or trash or lawn complaints on a neighbor: police calls could go bad a dozen different ways. Before you knew it, a guy who played his Johnny Cash or James Brown too loud was roughed up and/or jailed--not because that had to happen, but because the cops demanded the kind of humiliating submission that is difficult for any proud person.So, yes, there are many lines in America, but the one between "Call 911!" and "Jeez, don't call the effin' cops! Are you crazy?!" is pretty bright. The history of police abuse and misconduct is so horrific that, from this side of the line, indignation on the other does sometimes look like willful naivete.

Seems like a good example.As the article points out, what the cop did was clearly wrong and illegal. So laws wouldn't have stopped that.Body cameras? Those might have had an impact; in fact, those might have prevented the problems.Do you suppose there is anything else besides body cameras that might change police behavior for the better?Are there any standards of police procedure that you think need changing?

A very little of one and a whole bunch of the other I would say. In any case more evidence can only be a good thing. Body cams should be the standard and the recordings should be immediately available to anybody charged with an offence. I don't see any downside. What they don't have is appropriate oversight and accountability. We monitor the actions of our bank tellers closer than we do our police forces.It also seems to me that they are judged under a different standard from the rest of us. I find it disgusting that an officer can justify killing someone armed with a screwdriver or a shovel or a jack knife or even a pellet gun. If they have the authority to use lethal force it really should come with the condition that they cannot be wrong. Feeling threatened is not a high enough standard. They should know beyond a doubt that their life is in danger. Well no that should not be the first step. The gun should stay in the trunk until it is absolutely clear that they need to use it. That is the whole point. You eliminate most of the possibility for erroneous shootings and you also reduce the likelihood that the hostile criminal will decide that they need to shoot the unarmed policeman. Load them up with non-lethal weapons for immediate use. It works in some parts of the world.I appreciate that it is wishful thinking to want to take the guns off of the hip of the police but also how sad it is that we would accept any level of danger presented by the police at a routine traffic stop. It is just a sad state of affairs when an innocent civilian has anything to fear from the police.