- cross-posted to:
- oakland
You must log in or register to comment.
This seems like a strict improvement over the old situation, in a way that should be directly felt by lots and lots of people every single day.
I don’t get the urge to take a needlessly cynical take on news like this. Yes, the system is still flawed, but yes, it’s better than it was before. Take the win and move on to the next reform.
Absolutely this. If anything is going to change, we’re going to hear about those changes like this. If the reaction is always “fuck you -ACAB!” the change won’t work.
I actually strongly feel that ACAB, but I’d like to live in a society that could have fair and just policing, not one without police.
Yes. We need police in a society, as a force to prevent and stop crime. But what we have now across the US as police are shit. We need them to be rebuilt from the ground up as community policing with a focus on protecting people, not just enforcing violations.
ACAB makes sense with the system we have. But I kinda doubt we’re going to get many tear down-rebuild efforts. Our best bet is to focus on stuff like this: institutional change in huge areas that change how police think and operate.
I prefer PEB: Policing Enables Bastards.
Shorter and more accurate, given the US alone has 800k cops and there must be some podunk department of two officers who treats the ten citizens in town well and just has to pull cars out of ditches and calm down drunk spouses or something a few times a year.
Also if all good cops get fired so the rest are bad, there are some cops they’re working to fire as we speak and I want to respect them.
Any system of government will require some way to handle unlawful/harmful conduct, yeah. It’s just a matter of making it not complete shit.
No idea if it would work in practice, but I once heard an idea where policing is a (mandatory?) duty for all citizens, but in regular rotation. Meaning, at any given time, some % of the population is now cops, and once your turn is up you’re back to a regular person with no enforcement obligations or privileges. No idea if that would work in practice, but it would give people real consequences for being a shit cop. Nobody could just be a terrible cop in perpetuity.
Just make working in retail a mandatory service. That would fix society in a few years.
You have too much faith in humanity. Some would gain empathy for people who have to do that kind of work. Some would think they’ve earned the right to treat retail workers like shit because they did their time and handled it, so can you. Some would walk away with a better idea of how to fuck with retail workers or avoid detection when shoplifting.
I think that plus a strong system of court martialing could be worth a small country trying
I think doing police work properly requires more training than we can expect from random citizens in a rotation.
I would, however, support this kind of arrangement for legislators, where it’s called sortition.
We could start with training our existing cops
Just because the existing solution is bad doesn’t mean a different poorly thought out solution wouldn’t have its own problems.
Unfortunately you won’t get that. ACAB has lost its original meaning completely. It should be about police reform, but instead it’s about shitting all over the institution, regardless of if there are improvements. This post is the perfect example of that. An actual improvement, but it’s just people spouting ACAB. The circlejerk is annoying.
>ACAB has lost its original meaning completely. It should be about police reform, but instead it’s about shitting all over the institution
i think you are making that up
He’s thinking of “defund the police”
he’d be wrong about that, too
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I don’t get the urge to take a needlessly cynical take on news like this
Your gen-z card is about to get revoked
“Do you know why I pulled you over?”
“Because you got straight C’s in high school.”
I don’t see how this is transparency. Either way, the cop can just lie.
I mean this is nonsense:
California’s new law promotes these elements of procedural justice. During a traffic stop, for example, an officer who immediately shares the reason for the stop is being transparent. This allows the motorist to directly engage with the legitimate, legal reason for the stop rather than feel as if they are being interrogated for no reason or an ulterior motive. This more respectful form of communication makes police officers more accountable to those they wield power over.
If a cop pulls a black guy over for ‘speeding,’ it’s still the cop’s word against theirs. The only difference now is that the cop doesn’t have to make the black guy guess which lie the cop is going to use.
If a cop pulls a car over for speeding, and the motorist says “because I ran a stop sign”, the cop can now give two tickets. Removing the fishing question still makes the driver’s situation better.
But how does the cop know if I’m lying or not
I just wanted to distract him from the body in the trunk
That and the dash cam.
If you’re worried enough about police integrity, have a dash cam and have it on. I’ve seen videos (rare) where the cop lied about speed and the dash cam was used to knock it down.
Even cheap ones could be used to figure out speed based on landmarks and time stamps. GPS speed would be more conclusive, though.
For that scenario all you’d have to do is pay a lawyer to file a motion of discovery, and the charges will almost certainly be dropped. You could probably talk a paralegal to do it for cheap, or your jurisdiction might allow you to file it yourself.
It costs more to gather the evidence than they’ll get from the fine.
I got a dashcam a few months ago and it’s already paid for itself several times over. I’ve been hit twice and it’s pretty easy for insurance to get the other party to pay when you’ve got video evidence that they’re in the wrong.
How have you been bit twice in a few months? That sounds insane to me. 12 years since my last even bumper scuff.
I’m convinced it’s some cosmic irony caused by me buying a dashcam. Hadn’t had anything happen for about 10 years before that.
LAPD & Sherrif deputies being held accountable…
I have a small doubt
More accountable than Texas.
The Texas state troopers (who investigate police misconduct) are actually pretty hard ass about it. They see regular cops as inferior, so there’s no ‘thin blue line’ going on.
It’s probably because their training is like 9 months versus 6 weeks.
So…did they investigate uvalde yet or no?
They’re likely part of the reason there might be criminal charges pressed for it.
Texas Rangers are more likely to investigate.
This seems like a clear upgrade.
Cop pulls you over, and immediately states the reason. They lied about you speeding? That’s ammunition for a defense. They said you were swerving? Dash cam footage might tell a different story.
The effect on cops will be the biggest piece. They’ll stretch the truth or lie in court, because they have a script. They might not even remember the event.
But suddenly, they have to choose to lie in the moment, they might even be caught in the lie before a judge
It’s not everything, but it’s certainly something
The only correct answer is along the lines of “I couldn’t fathom!” Don’t talk to cops. They aren’t your friends.
I’ve always just said “it’s because you think I’m sexy and want my number.” But in retrospect, your approach is probably better.
I’m pretty sure “did we have a moment?” got me out of a minor ticket once.
In the lowest stakes scenarios: be white & very polite!
Refusing to open my mouth would’ve cost me a ton of money over my lifetime.
Of course, talking is the only reason thousands of people are in jail today… know your rights & go from there.
“No, but I sure am glad you did” with a quick wink and smile might get you their number lol.
Unless you are a truffle hunter!
I see what you did there
So I have two lines of thought here.
One…Can we do the questions of “So where are you coming from anyway” and “So where are you heading” next? Neither one of those are the cop’s business and have absolutely nothing to do with the traffic stop 99.9% of the time. The sole purpose of those questions is to get you to accidentally yourself into admitting to more that they can nail you with.
The other is good luck doing anything about it if the cops decide to ask you anyway. Sure, the cop may not legally be allowed to ask that, but what are you going to do about it if he does? Are you going to be willing to endure the cop dragging the traffic stop out as long as possible, just to annoy you? Are you willing to turn what may have been a warning into a citation because you pissed off the cop? Or worse, are you ready to endure him doing everything he can to nail you with everything but the kitchen sink, and make you go through the courts to fight it?
Making a law that makes it illegal for them to ask these questions does exactly nothing if the citizens are likely to receive further punishment if they refuse to cooperate when the cop asks anyway. The power imbalance is just way, way too lopsided in favor of the cop, and attempting to exercise your rights in these situations may end up causing more harm than good if the cop decides to go on a power trip.
You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.
Remember: cops get 72 hours to file charges or cut you loose, so they can just arrest and hold you without charges if they want to fuck your life up.
Good luck explaining to your boss that you missed the last 3 days of work because you were in jail, but it’s ok since they didn’t file charges (yet).
You tell them you are exercising your right to remain silent.
Because you are a sovereign citizen! Are you being detained??
Like they ever shut up
“Because you’re avoiding a school shooting?”
Because you already have donuts in the patrol car?
Because the grade-school girls are in class?
Because you need to fill your quota?
“Is it because of my ligma?”
Nah. It probably smells like a dikfore.
I was out at a bar the other night with a bunch of fellow dads. I mentioned how I just got my son with the dikfore joke, figuring everyone knew what I was talking about.
One guy is like “I havent heard that one” and it was like time stood still. I was once again a middle school boy about to drop an embarrassment bomb onto someone, from which they would never recover. Everyone else seemed to sense it in the air because they all went silent too.
“You don’t know the dikfore?”
We all know what comes next, and he realized what he had walked into the second it came out of his mouth. We all started cracking up, thinking it had been 30 years since the last time we were able to get a peer with that joke.
He still hasn’t lived it down. He never will, as long as I’m still breathing.
This is beautiful. David
AttenkokraAttenborough couldn’t have made it any betterI shall introduce an Aarakocra named David Attenkocra in my next D&D game.
Was it because my vehicle exceeded the weight limit with all of this updog I’m transporting?
What’s updog?
ligma balls 😎
lmao gottem
No, it was all the chickenway.
Yeah this was outdated. They should be informing you why they pulled you over.
So they can hear you go “I DID NOTHING WRONG! I DON’T UNDERSTAND! I WASN’T SPEEDING!” spammed like 50 times.
In which case, as long as the cop wasn’t lying, or making an excuse, could be easily proven. People might be more likely to trust that they were speeding if cops didn’t lie at every interaction.
Part of the problem is that cops are legally allowed to lie as an “Interogation Technique” (in the USA at least).
That’s why you don’t fucking say anything because there’s a reason they say “you have a right to remain silent”
But a lot of dumbass people don’t because they believe they can talk their way out of anything.
Pfffft
And you’re to imply that the violators don’t lie? What a joke you are.
Is that not why I explicitly said “could be easily proven”? As long as I’m less of a joke than you, I’m quite content <3.
Do YOU talk and act like this?
I MAY talk like THIS because doing THIS way of talking MAKES me sound IMPORTANT.
Retard.
imagine thinking people put emphasis on words to sound important, not to make written language clear for those reading
imagine thinking bold or italics are just people being full of themselves, don’t even get me started on underline
imagine ending your message with an explanation of your current situation, as if people didn’t already realize it
Just some guy sparing a moment to marvel at the retard.
I wasn’t speeding, relative to the sun!
You might have been though.
Now now folks, as long as the lovely police officers are still able to either plant, or pretend to find illegal drugs in the victim’s uh… criminals car so they can arrest them randomly, then everyone will be happy, yes?
Just as long as the police can still steal any property and call it civil forfeiture.
IANAL and it’s best to know and understand the laws of the state that you’re in. But in general you’re under no obligation to answer any questions a cop has for you and you’re not being rude or difficult by simply saying nothing at all. If a cop actually wants to help you they can do so by promptly giving you a citation and letting you go on about your day, not by trying to pry on your personal opinions or activities.
terry stop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
yes you are under obligation to answer any questions for whatever reason no matter the state
and to further exacerbate the situation states are now doing their own thing more than ever and Biden is failing on the campaign promise for police reform
yes you are under obligation to answer any questions for whatever reason no matter the state
You need to have brain damage to believe this is true. Police can detain you for whatever reason they might have, and refusing to answer them might cause them to place you under arrest, but you are not obligated to answer questions while you are under detention or arrest.
get pulled over in the wrong state and see if your statement still holds water
What are they gonna do? Use their psychic piggy powers to force me to talk? lmao.
No court in any state in this country would ever convict someone solely for exercising their right to not incriminate themselves. Abusive cops exist, sure, but that doesn’t make them right.
I really don’t get where you’re basing this on, what law compels you to waive your right to be silent? I’ll yield that a cop will treat you like shit if you stonewall them but there’s no way they can make you incriminate yourself.
Sorry, that’s arguably some bad advice. The most well known counterpoint is there in your Miranda Rights: you have the right to remain silent. That right exists under the 5th as the other comment mentions.
This applies to a traffic stop for most everything but name, address, and the required documents (insurance, driver’s license). As to whether you have to sign a ticket, I can’t say.
And of course this video is gold, watch it yearly:
I briefly skimmed over that page you linked so apologies if I missed something, but I didn’t see anything in there that implied you are under any obligation to answer questions from an officer. The officer has the right to detain you and in most cases you must comply with an officer’s orders, for example to step out of the vehicle, submit to a search, etc.
However, the 5th amendment of the US Constitution protects citizens from being compelled to offer self-incriminating information. In other words, the officer cannot order you to answer a question.
Again, IANAL and this is not legal advice.
Of course, this also means smart-asses can’t respond with, “What, don’t you know?”
Even if the legislation falls short of the ambitions of its supporters, however, it does hold promise for furthering community trust in police by promoting what’s known as procedural justice. In simple terms, procedural justice is the perception of fairness in interactions with authority such as traffic stops.
So, not actual fairness?
I mean, they said right there that’s in simple terms.
https://law.yale.edu/justice-collaboratory/procedural-justice
It needs to not only be fair, but appear fair.
If you’re speeding, and you get pulled over, and the cop acts confrontational and then gives you a ticket, it doesn’t appear fair.
If you’re speeding, and you get pulled over, and the cop says they pulled you over for speeding, asks if you had a good reason to be going that speed, and then gives you a ticket when you don’t, that appears fair, as well as being fair. The cop acted impartially, gave you a chance to explain yourself, and the outcome matched what you actually did.It needs to not only be fair, but appear fair.
Ah, okay then.
The appearance of fairness is the basis of our democracy and criminal justice system, it is an American tradition.
“I don’t answer questions”.
“I would prefer if you just told me.”
“Sorry, officer, I know my schlong was dangling out the window, it’s hard to keep it wrapped around my thigh while I’m driving.”
