What's the deal with motor vehicle violations?

And your argument will be as good as your hypotheticals.In this case Dogmafood's hypotheticals are complete bullshit. And so are his conclusions.

That's great advice. I've given it myself in this thread.However that advice would not have saved Bobby Canipe who was shot because it appeared to an armed policeman that Canipe had a gun and not because he was putting up even the slightest resistance to police. Nor would it have helped Levar Jones during his traffic stop for a seat belt violation. Anthony Dwain Lee would not have benefited from your advice either. Tamir Rice was given no chance to respond to any police commands.Encounters with police involve an element of danger in part because police may have no way to distinguish you from a cop killing lunatic. And as the above examples show, advice to obey police orders and litigate later, while well intended, may not be enough.Now perhaps you still think that we should have used an expired registration rather than a broken tail light in the original example. In my opinion that way of thinking borders on being inane. Again.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And nothing could have stopped that because when it looks to any normal person like you might be going for a gun, the police cannot wait till its pointing at their face to see if it really is a gun before taking action.It's a misunderstanding. But a misunderstanding the police have to make in order to do their jobs safely.Canipe should have stayed in his truck. Same as above. Jones shouldn't have gone back to reach in his car. The cop cannot wait till the gun's in his face. does not count as argue your rights in the court room and not on the side of the road. Pointing guns at the police, whether real or fake, is taking my advice? Get a real example, jeesh. Again, get a real example. You gave no such examples. You gave two examples of people reacting inappropriately in a police encounter and two more of people waving around gunswhich doesn't require the police to give orders before shooting. I don't think any of that nonsense. I think if you're going to act like an idiot in an encounter with someone who must reasonably treat every situation as potentially life-threatening and who's trained to shoot first, then you need to be prepared to be shot first.If you really want to talk about examples of unreasonable policing, present some examples of unreasonable policing; not just examples where hindsight showed police judgement to be wrong.

No doubt about that and that is sad. I don't dispute that they have good reason to be. What is it? 1 in 20 are a sociopath. 1 in 40 have PTSD. Not to mention all of your other garden variety mental disorders. Sprinkle in some guns and alcohol and a bad day at work. Yeah I would be afraid as well. However, the truth is that a truck driver has more to fear about going to work than any policeman. I keep coming back to the idea that if the police didn't have a gun on their hip that it would go a long way to solving the problem. In the trunk maybe or at the end of the phone but not on your hip.I appreciate that the police have to be able to apply pressure and that they must be able to force compliance but I don't see why it has to be so immediate and lethal.

Well it is good advice for surviving but not so much for being a free citizen.Sure, pick your battles but having the right to not have the shit beaten out of you isn't much good if you have to wait to have the shit beaten out of you before you can enforce the right.

Talk about your bovine scatology.

Again, where is this happening?

What alternative do you propose?In any situation the police have to decide quickly whether they or others are at risk and act on that decision. Sometimes the police get it wrong. But we are only making right/wrong judgement after the fact. During the encounter there is no time for an officer to deliberately make that judgement and the only standard you can expect anyone to apply is the standard of 'shoot you before you shoot me'.Your argument amounts to wanting the police to know the future.Your argument amounts to nonsense.

Are you from around here? Sort of like driving a car but why the hurry when you are parked on the side of the road? There is all the time in the world usually and usually the policeman is holding the clock.'Shoot you before you shoot me' is not the mindset that I want my police to be working under.

That's exactly the point Jon regarding Canipe. Note that it is not necessary to assign complete blame or even any responsibility to the police in order to point out the danger lurking in a police/citizen interaction.On the other hand, in other of the situations we can see that the police could have taken other actions and still protected themselves while investigation. Jones was ordered to get his license. Yes it is true that he would have been better off disobeying the order. But that also points out the danger involved in police/citizen interactions. Even obeying orders might get you shot. Let's also note that the policeman in that incident was charged with assault. I'll also note thatYou've completely ignored/missed the point, which is not that all blame belongs to the police even when the citizen is unarmed. That's not a great summary of what happened dumbass. I don't know whether you are a liar or an idiot. Canipe did nothing inappropriate whatsoever. His action was complete innocent as was that of Jones. In fact Jones was following police orders. Lee was shot in the back. The police perception that he was pointing a gun at them was wrong, but possibly understandable given the dim lighting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Lee_(actor)

quote:

---

On December 4, 2000, the results of Lee's autopsy were released. The autopsy determined that Lee was struck once in the back of the head and three times in the back. The LAPD had reported that Lee had been facing Hopper aiming this alleged replica gun at Hopper. The facts of the entry wounds were suppressed by the LAPD for as long as possible.

---

Whichever you turn out to be, liar or complete idiot, I don't see any reason to bother with your blather any further. Clearly, even obeying police orders promptly does not guarantee you won't get shot. In some cases, like Tamir Rice's case, you won't even be given the time to do so.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link.

What's wrong with you?The interaction did not have only two possible outcomes. It wasn't a choice of hearing 'show me your license' and standing there like a fool doing nothing or dodging into the car to grab them.In every of these interactions there was a more favorable outcome, and that more favorable outcome would have been realized by following the advice I have mentioned: realizing interactions with police can be dangerous and doing nothing to give them reason to go into 'shoot you before you shoot me' mode.And sometimes mistakes are just made and nothing can be done about it.Had Lee been waving around a real gun and shot and killed one of the officers, everyone would be wondering why the cops just stood there waiting to be shot at. Like I told Dogmafood, your hindsight may be 20/20, but the police don't have that luxury and so in a moment like that the police react in the same way any reasonable person would by figuring that it's probably better to accidentally kill you than for you to intentionally kill them. Of course not. Tamir Rice deserved no time. If you're waving the gun as the cops pull up, you've killed yourself.Again, had Tamir Rice had a real gun and shot the cops as they pulled up, everyone would wonder why they just diddled themselves while he waved it about.Our judgement after the fact is perfect, but police don't have that luxury, and the fact that you want to hold them accountable as though they do makes you the liar and complete idiot.Of course, if you had any other examples (as I requested) of actual police misconduct, we could discuss them without arguing about whether they are good examples or not. I'm sure there are plenty.But I think you just want to emote like a little girl; so I'll leave you to it.

Unlawful Shield – A Cato Institute Website Dedicated to Abolishing Qualified Immunity

No shit sherlock. Perhaps that's what I was saying when I posted this: Seems to be very little difference between what I posted and your final realization. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Tell that to the gun nuts who think a gun is a defensive weapon. You have to shoot first.

Enough with the childish and vacuous insults.Make your argument or shut up.