Driver falsely arrested at DUI checkpoint claims statistics — not drunk drivers — motivate arrests

"I'm just asking questions..." sounds a lot like, "I'm not [blank]-ist, but..."

Stuff like this is why I flat out just don't drive right now. 

I will 100% fail the roadside rhumba. I don't have the balance for it. I will however 0.0 any chem test you got. I just don't want to take chances though. No commentary on law enforcement or anything, I am just a giant fan of covering my own ass and not trusting anyone else. 

In reply to Mndsm :

Field sobriety tests are made to be failed even sober. Not like that they would use them that way....

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

So a whole lot of wrongs make a right?  So is the 1st amendment absolute?  Or is it that no one really cares anymore so the government can pretty much get away with anything they want?  

 

I thought I was clearly responding to the final question you asked about "what happens if the police don't like..." 

As for the rest:

A whole lot of wrongs never make a right, but the police will still do their best to cover their asses and the municipality they work for will do their best to avoid litigation. Both groups are operating from a position of power relative to an ordinary person.

The First Amendment is nearly absolute, but only applies to the government.

Lots of people really care, but changing governmental processes and/or deeply entrenched cultural norms takes a really long time. Citizen activism, voting in local elections, unbiased reporting, incentivizing different things all play into the process required to affect change. The process is *exhausting* by design.

Anger can be a good emotion when it comes from recognizing injustice and broken systems, but it's just the warning system. Individuals have to act in a positive and productive manner based on their feelings.

 

I'm happy to see so many others here also don't talk to cops. I worked alongside them in EMS for 2 years and they threatened me several times just for advocating for my patient; sadly nothing about this is really new.

Beer Baron said:

"I'm just asking questions..." sounds a lot like, "I'm not [blank]-ist, but..."

They're trying to pre-excuse E36 M3ty behaviors and mindsets on the off-case someone calls them out, like when they used to proclaim "Just sayin' ". I typically hear people do it when they don't wanna spend the energy to defend an opinon or don't know enough to do so, but still feel like they need it validated.

Another example is commentary where it's as broad as possible to illicit a positive response- I hear that when people complain about "Lack of leadership" in government. Where? State or fed? Which branch? Which person? How so? The statement means nothing, and because of that it can mean anything they want.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

That's why that particular person being referenced is consistently down voted. 

As far as talking to the cops, I have no issue with it. I've never had a disrespectful encounter even when I was put in handcuffs before they realized their mistake and took them back off. When I was pulled over doing 58 in a 25 (not a school zone), I was respectful and calm, they were respectful and calm. 

I really don't understand this attitude of "I'm going to antagonize the police because 'muh rights'"

EDIT: I realize that's different from what I originally posted, but a lot of the following posts seem to lean toward that type of attitude. Forgive me if I misinterpreted the intent.

z31maniac said:

I really don't understand this attitude of "I'm going to antagonize the police because 'muh rights'"

I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of antagonizing the police. I think people are arguing in favor of not giving them rope to hang you with. It is not in your interest to give police permission to gather evidence against you. Do not consent to let them search your car, house, or person without probable cause.

The job of the police is to make arrests and gather evidence to be used to prosecute suspects.

I'd say interact with them like the sales person at a car dealership. The sales person may be very friendly, but they are not your friend. They are out to sell you the most expensive car they can foist on you.

Beer Baron said:

z31maniac said:

I really don't understand this attitude of "I'm going to antagonize the police because 'muh rights'"

I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of antagonizing the police. I think people are arguing in favor of not giving them rope to hang you with. It is not in your interest to give police permission to gather evidence against you. Do not consent to let them search your car, house, or person without probable cause.

The job of the police is to make arrests and gather evidence to be used to prosecute suspects.

I'd say interact with them like the sales person at a car dealership. The sales person may be very friendly, but they are not your friend. They are out to sell you the most expensive car they can foist on you.

I think you might have misinterpreted what I was saying. If you're pulled over and they ask why I'm not saying you should go, "Yeah, because I have 10 kilos of yeyo in the trunk."

I'm not saying let them tell you turn your head and cough, I'm saying be polite and respectful and it won't even get to that spot. The speeding example I'm talking about. The OKCPD could have easily impounded my vehicle and arrested me on reckless endangerment, etc. I explained what happend and why he caught me at that speed. He knocked it down to a 10 over and sent me on my way.

I was referencing, which is tangentially related to some of the comments, the guys you see who purposefully get pulled over with their camera already set up. And then pull the "I don't have to roll my window down, I don't have to answer questions, etc" it's antagonizing for no reason. 

Kind of like the frittatas doing "takeovers" that make all car enthusiasts look bad. 
 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Beer Baron said:

"I'm just asking questions..." sounds a lot like, "I'm not [blank]-ist, but..."

It is easily verifiable.  I asked 6 questions.  One person did as they state and framed an answer.  Others deployed different tactics.  Nothing in that should be controversial.  If any of it is, someone is going to a whole lot of effort to read something into it.

As for cops,  just like people there are good ones and bad ones.  And just like people the bad ones often do more harm than the good ones can make up for.  
 

Personally, I find the 1st amendment only applies how I say it does when I say it does discussion lacking.  It's either universal or it's not.  You get to pick as side and there is no middle there.  Who you like and don't like is also irrelevant on this issue.  If it's not universal, then things are going to get a whole lot worse.  Again, you enjoy all this?  You think the police are bad now, just wait!    

Either everyone follows the rules or the rules don't matter.  That's why the bad people need to be punished.  Sadly our society has instead decided to go after the people pointing out that many have decided to not follow any rules.  The rest just ignore it all because they do not want to be inconvenienced, or they have blind hatred of others that disagree with them.  
 

Keep complaining about the symptoms (bad cops) without addressing the underlying issues if you like.  I already know that won't work.  Things will continue to worsen.  At some point it will get bad enough people will change, or most will die.  I'd prefer to be more proactive, but I know I'm an outlier.  
 

The boot of totalitarianism will always be looking for faces to crush.  Destruction of free speech is part of that plan.  How many times do we have to try this experiment before people understand it?   

I really don't think you're this ignorant, you seem to understand the 4th and 5th Amendments, but don't grasp the 1st for some reason.

Are you really this bored? Go drive your car or something. 

In reply to z31maniac :

Yes. Be polite and respectful.

Also recognize that you are the advocate for your legal protection. But do NOT answer all of their questions. Many are designed to trap you legally. Like the classic, "Have you had anything to drink?" Don't answer that.

Even in your example of, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" That's another one to NOT answer. If you say, "Because I was speeding," you have just admitted to doing something illegal.

I suspect that we are ultimately saying the same things from different directions though.

I don't believe most cops are bad people (in fact I think most are good people) but I do believe most cops are bad cops. The job is impossible, and the stakes are super high for everyone involved. It's like every industry and most people aren't great at their job.

Many police officers regularly trample on people's rights unintentionally. I am very respectful and support my local police, but I will not speak to them without counsel outside of traffic stops.

In reply to Opti :

Agree 100%, I've only been in that position once. Really weird feeling to be handcuffed in the back of a police car. I kept my mouth shut and they figured out their mistake in a few minutes.

Opti said:

I don't believe most cops are bad people (in fact I think most are good people) but I do believe most cops are bad cops. The job is impossible, and the stakes are super high for everyone involved. It's like every industry and most people aren't great at their job.

Many police officers regularly trample on people's rights unintentionally. I am very respectful and support my local police, but I will not speak to them without counsel outside of traffic stops.

That's a great perspective that I hadn't considered before. With how much I complain about normal people being terrible at their jobs (and not necessarily bad people) it's interesting that I usually complain about cops being E36 M3ty people, not decent people that are E36 M3ty at their jobs.

But like most careers, bad training and apathy can go a long way.

In reply to Opti :

Sir I regret that I only have one like to give.  Excellent perspective.

I don't even think most cops are necessarily E36 M3ty at their jobs. I think most cops are effectively morally-neutral tools of a broken system.

They behave how they are incentivized to behave and react how they are trained to react. Most problem behaviors can thus be traced to perverse incentives or bad training.

But when police do bad things, the officials who set those systems in place that led to the problem behaviors use the officers as scapegoats so that the voting populace focuses on the officers and not the system.

This is also why you get strong police unions that act in lock step to protect officers from the consequences of bad actions, because that is the only way to protect themselves from getting thrown under the bus.

Most police officers are like dogs. If a dog is aggressive and bites people, it's probably because they were trained poorly by their owner.

One of the problems is the complexity of our laws and regulations, for an officer to effectively do his job and enforce said laws he must understand them, which is impossible in itself and it's just one part of his job. We have a whole industry dedicated to just that one part, lawyers.

I've gotten more than a handful of traffic charges dismissed because signs don't meet the Texas specifications for traffic control devices. The guys who's job it is to install these signs don't know the regs, but police are expected to.

The worst part is we make contradictory laws and regulations regularly. Police do what they are told only to find out later that law they were enforcing is unconstitutional. 

Pretty much the only way to be a good officer, is to be a legal scholar on top of everything else you need to be good at, or just leave people alone for the most part unless you see something egregious, basic traffic stops turn into constitutional cases debating some of our founding principles pretty regularly

As it is Friday, and relevant to the discussion:

https://youtu.be/RkN4duV4ia0?si=0PWfavuv1yBcHpvF

Language is a bit salty

Mr_Asa said:

As it is Friday, and relevant to the discussion:

https://youtu.be/RkN4duV4ia0?si=0PWfavuv1yBcHpvF

 

Language is a bit salty

I think today is Thursday?

They sometimes have a very dangerous job, sometimes engaging with absolute scum of the earth. I surely wouldn't want to do that job and I appreciate most of those whom are willing. Tolerating bad apples within the team unfortunately seems to be the part of the training. Why is that?

I know we have a couple cops on here. I'll be curious to hear their perspective.

OHSCrifle said:

They sometimes have a very dangerous job, sometimes engaging with absolute scum of the earth. I surely wouldn't want to do that job and I appreciate most of those whom are willing. Tolerating bad apples within the team unfortunately seems to be the part of the training. Why is that?

Because departments are scraping for every person they can potentially train; nobody wants to be a cop anymore, which is especially bad when one of the only ways you'll solve cop city/police violence is just having more officers so that the overall stress level is lower.

Another issue mentioned was the scope being extremely wide, but cops already don't have a lot of schooling or training in law (and even less now with the aforementioned manpower issues).