REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Sidebar Sidebar

Berkeley city council wants to prohibit police from making traffic stops.

GDaddy

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,238
2,056
113
Carlsbad
www.nytimes.com

How Berkeley Could Remove the Police From Traffic Stops (Published 2020)

Thursday: The city’s proposal appears to be the first of its kind in the country. Also: A coronavirus update.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

"Now, we have a dispatch from Berkeley, by my colleague Kellen Browning, who covers tech:

The Berkeley City Council will consider a proposal next week to prohibit the city’s police officers from conducting traffic stops and shift that responsibility to unarmed public works officials.

...."

The sovereign citizens are gonna LOVE this one. Civilians making traffic stops and issuing citations. Some people will pull over for or submit to a civilian "revenue generator".

Fleeing drivers, unarmed traffic wardens getting shot up. The whole nine.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ifallalot, john4surf and plasticbertrand
plasticbertrand

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
21,482
14,314
113
enframed said:
There's absolutely NO reason anyone needs a gun for an actual traffic stop.
Click to expand...
They want to have every citizen, including mentally ill, to be armed to the tooth but then claim they need guns for traffic stops.

Nobody told them that they can't have their cake and eat it too.
 
hammies

hammies

Duke status
Apr 8, 2006
15,588
14,230
113
enframed said:
There's absolutely NO reason anyone needs a gun for an actual traffic stop. I bet we will hear fewer excuses like "looked suspicious," meaning, if you are not actually breaking traffic laws you will be less likely to be pulled over. Seems to me people will be more likely to actually pull over knowing the "cop" isn't armed.
Click to expand...
Pulled over for speeding

 
plasticbertrand

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
21,482
14,314
113
If you are for cops carrying guns for traffic stops, you must also be for gun control.

If you are not, STFU
 
GDaddy

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,238
2,056
113
Carlsbad
I wrote non-fixit citations for probably less than 10% of the car stops I made because normally the process of getting stopped is sufficient to prompt them to be more mindful of what they're doing and what can happen.

With that said, I also caught some very serious crooks off of traffic stops. I caught a couple of armed robbers that way - stopped them for a chickensht California stop and while I was running them the Watch Commander realized that the vehicle description matched that of a robbery report he was reviewing which had been taken an hour earlier. Fck those guys.

I caught burglars on several occasions off of traffic stops. I caught a LOT of hookers and johns off of traffic stops. We primarily used traffic enforcement to suppress the hooker trade and run them and their daddies off.

I was really stoked that time I pulled some guy over for expired tags (which was a minor no-charge fixit) and noticed the 15yr old female passenger who was riding with this 26-yr old driver. He had his wine coolers and blanket in the trunk, and when we asked him about it his response was "hey man, just LOOK at her." Fck that guy, too.

I caught a bunch of stolen cars that way, obviously lots of drugs and weapons.


The point is, your traffic wardens aren't going to just be running into innocent citizens when they stop someone.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: ~rwright~ and john4surf
Random Guy

Random Guy

Duke status
Jan 16, 2002
32,130
6,308
113
The only time I ever didn’t get a ticket was when it was in the driveway at my own house
About 3 am
Cop turned on his flashing lights when I was 2 houses away from home, so I pulled onto the driveway, shut off my car, got out with my hands up

I asked the cop to please turn off his flashing lights, this is my house.
I was afraid they would wake my wife, and she’d jump to the conclusion that he police were coming by to tell her I was dead
He was pulling me over for a taillight out
Other than that one time, got a ticket every fvcking time
I drove really sh*tty looking cars when I was younger and got pulled over a lot
 
GDaddy

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,238
2,056
113
Carlsbad
Like I said, once a couple of those civilians get shot up or they actually set off an otherwise avoidable fight because the person being stopped thinks they have no authority to stop them this idea isn't going to look so great.

It takes a certain number of cops to handle the calls for service in a given area. Traffic and other self-initiated activity is what they do when they don't have calls stacked up to attend to. Using traffic wardens isn't going to reduce the minimum number of cops it takes to safely handle their calls.

For instance, it takes two cops to respond to a family fight. One cop cannot safely handle both parties when their blood is up.

If the Berkeley city council wants their PD to stop enforcing traffic laws all they have to do is tell the chief that they want that. If the city council wants to prohibit self-initiated contacts of any type or of all types then just say so. If they want the cops to post up at a substation and limit their excursions to answering calls then do that.

The cops don't write the laws or establish departmental policy. That all occurs elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: john4surf
Random Guy

Random Guy

Duke status
Jan 16, 2002
32,130
6,308
113
GDaddy said:
Like I said, once a couple of those civilians get shot up or they actually set off an otherwise avoidable fight because the person being stopped thinks they have no authority to stop them this idea isn't going to look so great.

It takes a certain number of cops to handle the calls for service in a given area. Traffic and other self-initiated activity is what they do when they don't have calls stacked up to attend to. Using traffic wardens isn't going to reduce the minimum number of cops it takes to safely handle their calls.

For instance, it takes two cops to respond to a family fight. One cop cannot safely handle both parties when their blood is up.
Click to expand...
Oh, come on
Family counselors will be handling the family fights, right?
Or clergy maybe? Send the priest. Maybe they can perform an exorcism
 
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: PRCD and john4surf
GDaddy

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,238
2,056
113
Carlsbad
It's so stupid to think social workers will be able to restore order at a volatile family fight or neighbor-on-neighbor or drunk-on-crowd where everyone's blood is up. Just with the family fights, I've had participants lunge at their partner or kid right in front of me. If we hadn't been there to forcibly restrain him the victim would have gotten it again.


Everyone who has ever raised a teenager and tried to talk them down when their blood is up should be capable of recognizing the limitations of talk therapy in a still-volatile situation. Those of you who don't have that experience probably don't relate to the parallels.

ALMOST everyone here will have some experience with getting into an argument with a family member. And what is the advice from the professionals? To wait until everyone calms down before you get to calmly discussing how the hostilities flared up in the first place.
 
Last edited:
hammies

hammies

Duke status
Apr 8, 2006
15,588
14,230
113
Remember in the 60's and early 70's when police brutality and police racism was a big thing and they had all those humongous protests about it? Cops often acted with impunity and enough cops were horrible that it was a real problem. So they came up with hug-a-thug programs and increased the rights of the accused and severely restricted what cops could do (watch Dirty Harry if you need a refresher) in the name of what we now would call "equity".

To no one's surprise crime started heading up in the 70s and 80s. It got pretty bad, much worse than it is now. Cities were especially foul: machine-gun drive-bys, selling drugs in the street, open gang warfare, the works. People of color in the inner cities were screaming and begging for more policing and safety. So in the 90s they beefed up police forces and passed some pretty tough sentencing laws. Crime plummeted, and cities are now gleaming and safe compared to what they were 30 years ago.

But, police brutality and police racism are now a big deal again, so the pendulum starts swinging back. I can't wait to see how this is all gonna play out in the next decade or so.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Ifallalot, PRCD, Your Moms Dildo and 2 others
grapedrink

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
26,141
14,932
113
A Beach
enframed said:
There's absolutely NO reason anyone needs a gun for an actual traffic stop. I bet we will hear fewer excuses like "looked suspicious," meaning, if you are not actually breaking traffic laws you will be less likely to be pulled over. Seems to me people will be more likely to actually pull over knowing the "cop" isn't armed.
Click to expand...
Until you pull someone over who has warrants out for arrest and is facing 25 to life (or worse) if they get arrested. Someone with those kind of problems has nothing to lose by gunning down an LEO.
 
enframed

enframed

Tom Curren status
Apr 11, 2006
11,717
6,495
113
Del Boca Vista, Phase III
GDaddy said:
It's so stupid to think social workers will be able to restore order at a volatile family fight or neighbor-on-neighbor or drunk-on-crowd where everyone's blood is up. Just with the family fights, I've had participants lunge at their partner or kid right in front of me. If we hadn't been there to forcibly restrain him the victim would have gotten it again.

Everyone who has ever raised a teenager and tried to talk them down when their blood is up should be capable of recognizing the limitations of talk therapy in a still-volatile situation. Those of you who don't have that experience probably don't relate to the parallels.

ALMOST everyone here will have some experience with getting into an argument with a family member. And what is the advice from the professionals? To wait until everyone calms down before you get to calmly discussing how the hostilities flared up in the first place.
Click to expand...
Exactly, not walk up with guns drawn.

You just defended defunding the police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Share this page
Top Bottom