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.
Berkeley city council wants to prohibit police from making traffic stops.
- Thread starter GDaddy
- Start date
No, seriously. You're getting all wound up over whatever the *fraction* is of unjustified shootings of black men are occurring at traffic stops.
If the total number of black death-by-cops is less than 300/yr then what percentage of those deaths will be unjustified, and of that fraction, what percentage of THAT smaller subset will have occurred at traffic stops for - wait for it - equipment and registration violations that you think should be handled on the don't ask/don't tell basis?
Because aside from the unjustified shootings you are otherwise advocating to let go all the other offenders who are otherwise getting caught at those stops. And I can guarantee you that just the shooters who are getting caught in such stops will dwarf the number of bad shootings by the po-lice. Meaning, your unintended consequence will be more black men getting shot by shooters who are untouchable when they're out driving like sht.
If the total number of black death-by-cops is less than 300/yr then what percentage of those deaths will be unjustified, and of that fraction, what percentage of THAT smaller subset will have occurred at traffic stops for - wait for it - equipment and registration violations that you think should be handled on the don't ask/don't tell basis?
Because aside from the unjustified shootings you are otherwise advocating to let go all the other offenders who are otherwise getting caught at those stops. And I can guarantee you that just the shooters who are getting caught in such stops will dwarf the number of bad shootings by the po-lice. Meaning, your unintended consequence will be more black men getting shot by shooters who are untouchable when they're out driving like sht.
So GDaddy basically admitted that cops (he) use minor traffic stops to fish for probable cause.
Then he wonders why so many traffic stops escalate beyond necessary and why innocent people get shot or physically restrained.
When you wear a cop uniform and a gun, everyone is a target.
Gross but perfectly in sync with GDud's persona.
End justifies the means. Pays to be a winner (cop). We built this. REEEEEE
Then he wonders why so many traffic stops escalate beyond necessary and why innocent people get shot or physically restrained.
When you wear a cop uniform and a gun, everyone is a target.
Gross but perfectly in sync with GDud's persona.
End justifies the means. Pays to be a winner (cop). We built this. REEEEEE
Read what I wrote. The observed traffic violation provides the PC for the stop. Period. No matter who and no matter what. The observe violation completely justifies a citation, even though a lot of agencies and a lot of cops will use their discretion to not issue a cite for every stop they make.
If during that contact the cop *observes* indications that other offenses may be present then that's a *separate* issue which occurs in addition to the original offense. Meaning, you have to actually be riding dirty to get legitimately caught at it during a traffic stop.
And yes, the courts have long held that such stops are completely legal regardless of who it is that's getting stopped.
If you want to segregate the application of the law by race then go for it. Lobby your legislature to prohibit such stops for your favorite victim groups. Or mandate the courts let such offenders off without any fines.
After all, your ilk is all about equity > equality. Right?
Last edited:
So you're saying the law is open for interpretation (and abuse by cops).
You can stop anyone at any time because the speed limits are ridiculously low in CA and if you really try hard you can always find something wrong with a car or person's driving.
Not to mention that shitty cars/poor people/minorities get stopped way more often for that reason.
Gross, but so you.
So every time I exercised my discretion and let someone off who I had legal justification for citing - are you calling that abuse?
There are two forms of discrimination - different treatment and disparate impacts.
Different treatment is easy to spot; I write minor citations at a higher percentage for the black drivers I stop than for the white drivers doing the same thing.
Many of these depts already track these statistics, and it's obvious that these percentages should look the same.
Now one of you will inevitably do the Pavlovian jump to say that cops should be making their stops at the same rate. And to whatever extent the mix drivers who reside and transit a neighborhood are always 50/50 then that would indeed be the desired and expected outcome.
The question is, do any of you really think such 50/50 neighborhoods are common?
Last edited:
No, I call abuse every time you stopped somebody for a minor traffic offense because you suspected something else.
The bolded part is the issue. People knee-jerkedly talk about how it's a low number of blacks who are killed but forget the constant harassment. How would you feel if you couldn't even drive down the street without worrying about being pulled over for no reason but being black, cuffed, shaken down on the side of the street for an hour, and finally let go because they weren't actually doing wrong one bit and it was a shakedown. I am glad my 3 classmates who got this treatment for the crime of driving through Torrance sued and took that city for over a quarter mil.
Cops aren't pulling that sh*t against rich white people. You bring up the poor driving and how they should be pulled over? Yeah, right. Just about everyone in Ladera Ranch and Coto would have a bruised solar plexus or metal plate in their head from taking a baton shot there and they NEVER get pulled over. It's because the cops actually fear white entitlement (and their lawyers) more than the proverbial felon-with-a-gun traffic stop. They got f*cked up in Torrance because they harassed the wrong black kids.
A cop pulling over a rich white guy in a Range Rover for probable cause, giving them a rough frisking, cuffing them, and tossing their car for an hour, and then letting them go for a "broken taillight"? Yeah, tell me when that happens.
Like I said, I caught a lot of assholes that way and I'm not going to apologize for that because arresting assholes is part of the job description.
Meanwhile, and I can't repeat this often enough; I usually only wrote citations that couldn't be resolved with a fixit for the serious movers that even a bleeder like you would agree deserved it. Tailgaiters, seriously unsafe turns, exhibition of speed, etc. I exercised my discretion with WAY more moving violations than I ever cited, occasionally as a result of some hothead talking their way into it in lieu of taking advantage of the opportunity I was offering them.
What about the cops letting a hundred speeders through residential neighborhoods go in lieu of making sure they get the poor Mexican with semi-illegally tinted windows just trying to get to work (and actual work at that)?
The only way society changes is if cops start harassing the Karens and Brodies in the rich neighborhoods the exact same way they do with blacks and mexicans in the hood. Just like the War on Drugs - change only happens once the insulated part of society freaks out that it could actually happen to them.
Last edited:
I bet if you took a look at both police and civilians, the police (in uniform or not) commit crimes at a rate exponentially higher than the general public. It would be interesting to see a study on that. And I'm not talking about crimes that you get convicted for (because cops pull the immunity card like Joss Ackland in Lethal Weapon 2) but ones actually committed.
How many innocent people have you harassed unnecessarily to catch a few assholes?
Fück those people, right?
End > Means
I'm not going to argue the point that poor people present a much richer target environment for weapons and warrants and contraband than rich people. But the reason for that is the same reason the cops are getting way more calls for service involving most other types of crime.
I don't particularly like rich people anyway, so if you want the cops to adopt a zero tolerance program on them that's fine by me. Put the quota out on soccer moms and middle aged asian guys driving minivans if that's what works for you. Your ROI isn't going to resemble that of the people getting stopped in the hood, but that's life.
I’m not seeing pulling people over for stuff as harassment. And it happened to me a LOT when I was in my late teens and early 20s
Gdaddy is saying he pullled people over.
how do you that translate that to harassment?
LOL
Getting stopped for an actual violation isn't harassment. I have fully and richly deserved every traffic citation and vehicle stop I even experienced.
When it came to searches I seldom came up empty. Besides, if an asshole is riding dirty even 5% of the time then that completely justifies rousting them on sight 100% of the time. The whole point of active enforcement is to coerce people to stop offending.
Last edited:
No, I'm saying that pulling people for minor stuff, like tail lights, because you want/hope to find something else without probable cause, is harassment.
GDaddy is justifying it by saying he caught "a lot of assholes".
The fact that you got pulled over a lot in your shitty car in your 20s and you don't get pulled over anymore, is proving my point.
Most offenders are young and male. Who would waste their time on a 50-yr old black church lady or the latino who's driving a worktruck filled with lawnmowers and shovels? Even if they did drive like sht (which they don't) my odds of finding anything other than the tail light are slim and none.
You don't fish in an empty aquarium. You go to when and where the fish hang out, and you use little stuff to land the big stuff. The young white guy driving the lifted 4x4 crewcab is a much higher percentage target than the soccer mom driving the Explorer. Sorry/Not Sorry. .
You don't fish in an empty aquarium. You go to when and where the fish hang out, and you use little stuff to land the big stuff. The young white guy driving the lifted 4x4 crewcab is a much higher percentage target than the soccer mom driving the Explorer. Sorry/Not Sorry. .
But I got pulled over for stuff like stop signs speeding red lights expired inspection headlight out taillight out
I always maintained that I was a safe driver, though not always a legal driver.
I wasn’t harassed. I may have been targeted more than some middle aged white guy in a sedan, but maybe it reminded me to break the rules less just because those fines add up, especially with late fees
I always maintained that I was a safe driver, though not always a legal driver.
I wasn’t harassed. I may have been targeted more than some middle aged white guy in a sedan, but maybe it reminded me to break the rules less just because those fines add up, especially with late fees