What's the deal with motor vehicle violations?

Are you okay? There was no claim that being asked to remove your glasses is a fifth amendment issue. This is completely out of the blue. It's as if you've lost track of the discussion. Don't you remember? I was trying to find something similar to being asked to put out a cigarette so that I could attempt to replicate how Sandra Bland might have felt so I could gauge whether it might be a request from an officer that I might refuse to carry out. It was Cat Sci who originally asked if I would put out the cigarette, so since I don't smoke I was trying to find some similar request.The confusion continues in your final paragraph where you ask if I think not removing sunglasses is in the spirit of the Boston Tea Party, another thing never remotely implied, so I'll just ignore this post.But you *are* worrying me. I don't often have such huge communication disconnects with people as I do with you, and I'm beginning to wonder what gives.--Percy

It just struck me that this discussion, both here and in the media, has been operating under the assumption that Sandra Bland refused to put out her cigarette, at which point she was ordered out of the car. But Bland did not refuse. Here's that part of the conversation: Sandra Bland didn't refuse to put out her cigarette. She only asked why she had to put out her cigarette.Regarding Bland's attempt to record the arrest, Internet opinion seems divided about whether the officer had the right to ask Bland to put her phone down while she was being arrested. I lean toward allowing arrestees to record, agreeing with this from Did Sandra Bland Have a Right to Film Her Arrest?:

quote:

---

In affirming a right to record, the 7^th Circuit carved that line out of Bellotti and plunked it right down into Alvarez. When a state restricts the right to record, the court explained, it limits the stock of information we all draw from to debate public issues. By forcing bystanders and arrestees to turn off their cameras, police officers are essentially depriving the public of the key piece of information in any subsequent public debate.

---

In related news, Bland was apparently a profligate bad driver, see Sandra Bland Had Long History of Driving/Legal Infractions. She owed a total of $7,579 in court fines in Illinois at the time of her death.--Percy

I explained my answer in some detail. You don't admit guilt and your ability to refuse to admit guilt is protected by the fifth amendment even if you are arrested. With respect to removing your sunglasses, the police can easily get you to remove your glasses if they are suspicious about your identity. In other words, the advice is not inconsistent. And as has been pointed out, the eyeglasses is not a good match for the cigarette. You also told me I was being inconsistent, so I addressed that as well I know why you did it. It turns out that what you pick does matter.

What if the policeman wants to put her in handcuffs? Isn't that the normal practice? I don't see how you are going to film your own arrest with a hand held device. I do recall a case where a man was arrested for filming an interaction with police using a motorcycle helmet camera (Maryland?). The man's right to film was ultimately vindicated in court. We may have gotten this wrong, but I don't think any of us claimed that even failing to put out the cigarette justified even a Terry stop, let alone an arrest.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

TROOPER: "Do you mind putting out your cigarette, please, if you don't mind?"
BLAND: "I'm in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?"

​

TROOPER: "Well, you can step out now."

---

At this point, the order to step out of the car seems to me to be legal. An arrest is not justified. But things start to escalate here and immediately afterward. IMO, that is the interesting part of the discussion. Who would do anything other than get out of the car at this point?If your answer is that you would ask for an explanation, what would the police need to say to get you to leave your vehicle?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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.

The sunglasses are a fine match for the cigarette if they enable me to achieve a similar state of mind as Sandra Bland. Had it been you with all the other issues you want to introduce that didn't occur to me then it would not not have been a good match, and you could not have achieved the same state of mind as Sandra Bland with the sunglasses scenario. But I could. Goal achieved. Mission accomplished. And, of course, the sunglasses scenario had absolutely nothing to do with fifth amendment issues nor with political representational issues.This discussion has convinced me that I'm probably a better candidate than most for getting arrested at a routine traffic stop, which is something I was curious about. But while it's not exactly off-topic, it is taking the thread off its main point, which is that it should be incredibly difficult to get arrested during a routine traffic stop, but it's not, particularity if you're a minority.One good idea might be to make it part of the responsibility of Internal Affairs to test officers in the field. I'm sure it would be eye opening. I wonder how many Internal Affairs personnel would refuse such assignments out of fear for their personal safety.--Percy

Except that the police reaction may well be different and the reasonableness of your refusal will be judged differently as well.If you don't care about that stuff, then you might as well talk about refusing to hand the police your license and registration.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I still like the sunglasses scenario for myself personally, because at that point it would never have occurred to me that the officer could possibly have good reasons for that request. So let's say the interaction went like this:

quote:

---

TROOPER: "Do you mind removing your sunglasses, please, if you don't mind?"

​

PERCY: (pause) "I'm sorry?" (buying time to think)

​

TROOPER: "Please remove your sunglasses."

​

PERCY: (reacting slowly, moving hand very slowly toward sunglasses) "Uh..."

​

TROOPER: "Well, you can step out now."

​

PERCY: (incredibly surprised) "Huh?"

​

TROOPER: "Step out of the car." (opens driver's door)

​

PERCY: (now beyond shock) "What?"

​

TROOPER: "Step out of the car!" (grabs at me)

​

PERCY: "Okay. (exits vehicle) What's going on here?"

---

The trooper is clearly overreacting, but the law gives him the right to arrest me, possibly for resisting arrest since he had to open the door and grab at me, but apparently just the fact that he pulled me over for (let's say) not signalling a lane change is sufficient. The law should not give him this right.When people have had a long and hard day and a co-worker is behaving like an idiot, internal governors prevent us from blowing up at them. We're going to have to see them tomorrow. But when an officer blows up during a traffic stop and arrests you for virtually no reason, nothing protects you. Especially if you're a minority. The law backs him, other officers will back him, and judges will back him. That's wrong.--Percy

There are some people here who couldn't care in the slightest about what you were trying to mean with what you said.The only thing that matters to them is the actual words that you submitted and how they can use that text against you to win debate points.I've found that simply not replying to those people is better than trying to explain what you meant.

The policeman may or may not intend to arrest you when he orders you to get out of the car. Not taking off your sunglasses may have drawn the order to get out of the car without a decsion to arrest you. If y.ou are actually being arrested, then yes I agree that there has been a huge over action.So, is there an over reaction in the scenario you describe without the arrest? Maybe. But so far the over reaction is harmless. Note that you did exit the vehicle with only a small assist. Sandra did not do that.My advice though is that if the law is bad, fighting it by not getting out of the car upon orders practically guarantees an escalation of some sort and won't get the law changed. I highly recommend obeying the order to get out of the car. You haven't presented any evidence that anyone actually does this. If this were happening, it would be slam dunk abusive, no argument. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think talking about it on the side of the road can have an effect, but not on the principles. I like the principles. I don't want to change the principles. I want to change the officer's thinking. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but someday. People mature and change in reaction to feedback over time, and I want to contribute to that feedback.--Percy

Yes, of course. I already addressed that point precisely in Message 103 when I said, " I posted a link recently to an article discussing how it isn't possible for anyone pulled over to know what's in the mind of the officer, and that the law is structured in ways that place people in impossible Catch-22 situations as they try to balance their rights against their wish to not be arrested." Pulling that link out for you, it was Sandra Bland and the ‘lawful order’ problem.--Percy

I don't have a problem with that.I take it that you don't want to talk about how the issues that you think are important might not actually be, nor discuss whether or not racism is a driving factor in the problem?

I agree. There is a old saying here in Texas. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down. In Texas if you don't get out of the car when told you will have your ass yanked out and kicked.
Most police are...well police. Many seem to operate under the assumption that we the general public are guilty of some crime or infraction just waiting to be beatin out of us.