What's the deal with motor vehicle violations?

My point was only to introduce alternative measures to the one you suggested. I admit that I have not proved that the police methods are effective. The police claim that they need the ability to do Terry stops, and I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss the possibility that they are correct without some evidence.If you want to pursue the idea that such stops don't work, then some stats or other evidence ought to make its way into the discussion. Nobody actually said that you should not do this. And I am not defending police who behave as Bland's arresting officer did either. I am glad to hear that some police in NH know the difference between an irritated man and a dangerous one.In fact the closest thing I have seen to a disparagement on this topic is when you claimed that people who followed a logical course of action including standing on their fifth amendment rights did not deserve their rights.Edited by NoNukes, : replace no with know

I'm sorry that you find having your views characterized as "black and white" offensive, but it wasn't meant to be offsensive, that's just the way they seem to me. It's hard to believe you've never heard feedback like this before. Anyway, responding to perceived insult with actual insult isn't terribly inspiring.I don't find you citing yourself once again as an authority very convincing. What you say only reinforces the view that you tend to have a very black and white view of things ("My experience is that traffic court judges do not put up with excuses when deciding guilt or innocence.")You seem interested in whether I have ever taken a ticket to court, and the answer is yes, though not for myself. I won, for my son. I got him his license back. Due to extenuating circumstances. Gee, how amazing, a gray area. Getting back to the topic, I think the advice to avoid conflict with law enforcement through self-censoring is good, but it is not the way I choose to live my life. I have always spoken my mind, and I will continue to do so.If everyone isn't getting bored with my stories, I just remembered another incident. A car pulled out of a driveway and cut me off rather severely, it was an elderly lady and I don't think she saw me coming, and rather than hit the brakes I went around her. The road ended in a town center, and the lady I had passed called out to an officer in a patrol car, who pulled me over for passing on a solid line. He gave me a warning, but I lit into him (politely) for handing out a ticket on someone else's inaccurate say so for something he didn't witness himself. We were going at it so long that another officer stopped and asked if he needed any help, but he declined. He finally asked, "If you want to take it to court I can change it to a ticket." I was positive I would win, but I felt too busy to go to court, plus you don't have to do anything for a warning and so all I stood to gain was proving the officer wrong, and there was always the possibility that I would lose, so I declined.--Percy

Oh, I think what I said was pretty accurate, but this is the wrong thread for that discussion. I just referenced that discussion in passing to indicate that I was basing my assessment of your views as black and white on your participation in more than one thread. If you want to resume over at Deflation-gate it's up to you.--Percy

Even more reasonable might be for the police to provide evidence that the methods they want to employ can work without alienating entire races of people. You're misrepresenting my argument. I haven't said anything about Terry stops and whether they "work" or not. Someone else brought up Terry stops, not me. What I said is that you have to balance both sides of the ledger. You and Cat Sci are advocating a very careful approach to interactions with law enforcement during traffic stops, and I have no objection to that. I think I've called it good advice a number of times. I'm just saying it's not for me.But I guess you're right about the response you're referring to ("People who won't stand up for their rights don't deserve them, though I'll grant they might live longer."), which was a followup to my comment that the police should not be able to intimidate people into silence. Make no mistake about it, your careful approach *is* a result of police intimidation, and the approach *is* prudent, but it certainly isn't in the spirit of the principles laid forth by the founding fathers in documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, which is all I was really getting at.--Percy

I invite you to back up what I said in that thread and I will comment, otherwise I am not going to bother with the thread until something substantial happens with Brady and the NFL.

Wrong, Percy. What I advocate is primarily advice about preserving your rights at a subsequent trial, and about understanding that when you want to assert your rights, you should do so on your own terms.There is a time for loud, noisy, protests and even for civil disobedience. But that time probably isn't at a traffic stop.

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.

No, not wrong, just not you, and certainly not in the spirit of our founding principles. I've said repeatedly that advice like this is good advice, but we're talking about minor traffic violations. Were we talking about causing a 19-car pileup then maybe advice about "preserving your rights at a subsequent trial" and all the rest would make sense, but to my mind it's out of proportion to the minor stuff we're talking about here. The trivial nature of the offense is the whole point of this thread, that someone pulled over for the most minor of traffic violations ended up in jail. I agree that a traffic stop isn't the place for "loud, noisy, protests and even for civil disobedience," but that doesn't mean it's not the place for telling an officer that what he just said about the travel speed of cars on the highway not five feet away is untrue, nor that what another officer's just done constitutes trickery or entrapment, nor that what yet another officer has done is to write a ticket for something based upon hearsay that he didn't witness. Policemen are human, not robots. When they're wrong, they're wrong, and at some level they know it and it will affect their future actions. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but someday, and maybe not every officer, maybe not most of them or even maybe only a few of them, but I don't believe the words are wasted.Officer Brian Encinia is receiving some very strong feedback now on his actions in the Sandra Bland arrest (assignment to desk duty, making the national news). My guess is that it will definitely affect his future actions.--Percy

Sound words. Right words.The problem is you are not black in America.Being sound and right doesn't mean you will not end up being a dead black American."Yes, Massa. Hands up. Don't shoot."

I doubt there's a country in the world were answering a policeman's questions simply, courteously and unchallengingly isn't the best policy for avoiding further trouble.

I'm sure some blacks' experiences with the police have led them to enough suspiciousness to account for reactions like Sandra Bland's, but I always understood that when a cop tells you to do something you do it, without backtalk or resistance, because he's the authority in the situation --but also because cooperation puts him at ease and you don't want to deal with a cop who's scared you might be about to shoot him. I would think that would be the best policy for anybody, blacks too, or maybe especially.

Yeah, me too. But if you receive a warning you'll never be in a courtroom, so the roadside is your only opportunity to communicate to the officer what he's done that is wrong or said that is incorrect.I hope I didn't give anyone the impression that I thought I was trying to talk cops out of tickets, especially since by the time I was talking to them they'd already filled out the ticket. It seems that the first part, where they ask if you know why they pulled you over, was always brief. The second part, where they return from their vehicle and hand you the ticket, was always the longer part. It was when they tried to impart some information or explanation or advice that was glaringly incorrect that invited a response.I also hope I didn't give the impression that I just dress down any cop with the temerity to pull me over. There have also been times where it was a case of, as you said, "You got me," and I had no problem with it. That was even the case where I was pulled over for doing 90. I didn't object to the ticket. It was his instructions that I should not drive over 55 mph again that made no sense. I'm sure he hadn't recorded a car going that slow all day, and I'm sure he didn't go that slow, either. There was something a little off about this officer, too. I felt a bit like I was being goaded, and I dismissed that feeling at the time, but now I'm not so sure.But as I read the rest of what you say I can see that how the police handle these traffic stops does follow the pattern you describe. I can see that they *are* trying to get you to admit to things, and that they *are* laying the groundwork for a possible challenge of the ticket. I hadn't thought of that before, but I guess I don't really care about challenging tickets in court. I don't have that kind of time. I've gotten calmer and politer with age, but I don't know about following orders. I don't smoke, but say I was asked to remove my sunglasses. Would I obey? I'm sure I'd be very surprised at the request and would certainly at least pause to think. I'm not the one standing outside the vehicle, but I get the point. Busy highway at rush hour, not a good place for a conversation. But central Mass boonies at 1 AM, not so bad. It isn't the consequences, it's the principles. You earlier said the police aren't droids. Well, we're not droids, either. We don't just plug in the facts and follow the most practical and efficient course of action.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo in last para.

If by "designed" are you asking if I think it was their intent to alienate entire races, then no, I don't think it was their intent, but I don't think intent matters here. This is a case of unintended consequences, where laws and procedures put in place to make it easier for police to arrest criminals have resulted in the alienation of entire races, probably due to racial biases, whether consciously or not. All that does is provide strategies for the discriminated group to deal with discrimination. It doesn't solve the problem. We'll have to disagree about police racism. This is good advice, but it would have been more applicable when I was younger. People in my age group have largely calmed down, and they aren't hassled much by the police. Also, it must at least raise eyebrows at the precinct when an officer hauls in a retiree for assault after a traffic stop, so there's that discouragement to attempts at escalation.--Percy

Yes, exactly right.--Percy