# You can now get a citation for making direct eye contact with a cop



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 1, 2015)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...king-direct-eye-contact/?tid=trending_strip_2

So it seems you can get a citation for making direct eye contact and holding it. At least that's what it seems like in Ohio. Now the cop gets to sit down and have a "conversation with the guy he stopped. I'm hoping that conversation ends with the cop getting fired.


----------



## Scorpio616 (Sep 1, 2015)

My folks always warned me not to look directly at a cop as many officers WILL find it suspicious.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 1, 2015)

I thought DWB was suspicious enough for cops.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 1, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I thought DWB was suspicious enough for cops.




It is, but it's made worse when you look at a cop's eyes.


----------



## Dioltach (Sep 1, 2015)

I caught a bit of a reality cop show the other day, where the deputy sheriff saw a car with tinted windows, and said, "That's my probable cause to pull him over."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 1, 2015)

There are all kinds of regulations about what you can have installed in or decorating your car.  Run afoul of one, and it is 100% legal probable cause.  That is why I no longer have Mardi Gras beads hanging from my rear view mirror- driving with something dangling from your mirror is illegal in Texas.

In a lot of jurisdictions, window tint is on the list of regulated options.  Make it too dark or place it on the wrong windows (for instance, only rear and back-seat aftermarket tint is legal in Texas), and again, it is 100% legal probable cause.





Somehow, though, I don't think prolonged eye contact will survive constitutional muster.


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 1, 2015)

In Illinois, the windshield and the front door windows cannot be tinted, rear and rear side door windows tinted is acceptable. So if your driver side door window is tinted you're probably going to get pulled over. I got a recent warning ticket for having a ball hitch on the bumper of my pickup truck, because it partially blocked the license plate, even though its a commercial vehicle that I regularly pull a trailer with.


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

Scorpio616 said:


> My folks always warned me not to look directly at a cop as many officers WILL find it suspicious.




Yet ironically enough, not looking somebody in the eyes is also a flag for lying, hiding something, aka being suspicious.

Unless you stare at somebody's gender related body regions, every person must have the right to look wherever they may in a social situation free from judgement.

Eyes Matter!


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There are all kinds of regulations about what you can have installed in or decorating your car.  Run afoul of one, and it is 100% legal probable cause.  That is why I no longer have Mardi Gras beads hanging from my rear view mirror- driving with something dangling from your mirror is illegal in Texas.
> 
> In a lot of jurisdictions, window tint is on the list of regulated options.  Make it too dark or place it on the wrong windows (for instance, only rear and back-seat aftermarket tint is legal in Texas), and again, it is 100% legal probable cause.
> 
> ...




Yup.

From a stereotype/profiling perspective, if I saw a shiny/flashy car with very dark tinted windows all around, I'd think I have a higher chance of pulling over a drug dealer than any other vehicle on the road.  Of course, as a cop, I'd miss all the drug dealers moving product in crap mobiles because they don't draw much attention...

I blame rap videos, since that's the kind of cars they show.


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I thought DWB was suspicious enough for cops.




I just thought of a secondary problem with this.  To a racist, a black man looking you in the eyes would be an affront as he dared raise his gaze from the ground.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2015)

Janx said:


> Y
> Unless you stare at somebody's gender related body regions, every person must have the right to look wherever they may in a social situation free from judgement.




I don't think dealing with a cop working in his or her professional role really counts as a "social" situation.  

As described, the whole thing sounds like, "He looked at me funny, so I followed his car, waited until he made a minor infraction, and then pulled him over for it to see if I could catch him at something worse.  I couldn't, so issued a minor traffic citation, and made some ill-considered comments about how and why this stop happened."

Now, I can guess a cop can develop an intuition based on human behavior.  Then, following to see if there really is something up makes at least some plausible sense.  But, this guy was driving - so how much eye contact could he really have made?  Did the suspect pull up to a stop-light next to the cop and stare like he was expecting to drag race, or something?


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 1, 2015)

Whenever I make eye contact with a police officer, I generally offer a very slight and pleasant smile and nod my head, as if to say "hello". Usually cops nod back and suspicions are out the door. Though because of my short (near military haircut) and normal clothing, I usually don't appear suspicious, so that might be a part as well.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 1, 2015)

Janx said:


> I just thought of a secondary problem with this.  To a racist, a black man looking you in the eyes would be an affront as he dared raise his gaze from the ground.




Maybe it was just perception, but the times I went in the US, I found that black employees refered to me more often as "sir" than white ones. Althought the use of "sir", or its frech equivalents, is way more common in the US than in Québec. So maybe it just appeared more prevalent. 

In videos of cops pulling black people over, I noticed they use the word sir a lot. I haven't compared with videos of white people being pulled over.


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 1, 2015)

I generally say "sir" to any person of authority, and often to older males as well, though I did serve in the military. Though I'm not completely white (half Japanese), I pretty much look white.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 1, 2015)

On a totally unrelated note, a man with his hands up is shot by Texas cops. http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/01/us/san-antonio-bexar-county-texas-police-shooting/


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2015)

goldomark said:


> In videos of cops pulling black people over, I noticed they use the word sir a lot. I haven't compared with videos of white people being pulled over.




In the US, referring to a cop as "sir" or "officer" is pretty typical, no matter your skin color.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 1, 2015)

Umbran said:


> In the US, referring to a cop as "sir" or "officer" is pretty typical, no matter your skin color.




Sir is a pretty common word over there, I've noticed. It stands out to me, as it's fairly uncommon to hear the word here, but plenty of you folks use it with each other. We certainly don't use it when speaking to the police.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Sir is a pretty common word over there, I've noticed. It stands out to me, as it's fairly uncommon to hear the word here....




Well, for you folks, it is still an official form of address, as you still have knights.  I would not be surprised if that would lead you folks to using the term differently.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 1, 2015)

I think it is more about the US's relationship with authority and republicanism. We do not use "monsieur" very much here, and it isn't associated with knights or anything. In France though, a republic that value authority and hierarchy, "monsieur" and "vous" are very common.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 1, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I think it is more about the US's relationship with authority and republicanism. We




I dunno about that. I've been called it by random people in the U.S.  A woman on the bus in San Fransisco, for example, or someone asking for change.  Nothing to do with authority. .


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 1, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I think it is more about the US's relationship with authority and republicanism.




I seriously don't think Republicanism has anything to do with it. There's an 18th century book written by a Frenchman regarding his experience in America (I don't know the book nor author, but saw it spoken of in a documentary), and in it he notes visiting a restaurant and everyone calling the waiter "sir", even though the waiter was obviously not knighted (the author considered it very funny to call a waiter, sir). He noted all Americans used "sir". I don't think its a relationship with authority as much as a term of respect to any person you don't really know and having some dealing with. On the other hand, since we don't have knights in the US, nobody is given the title "sir" before there name.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 1, 2015)

My sense is that, towards the south of the USA, "Sir" is often used simply to be polite.  Often, but not always, because it also provides a leg for a lot of nuance.

What I wonder about is what justification is required for you to be followed by the police?

And, do cases of technical violations ever rise from being legally justified to being unjustified?  When does extra scrutiny turn into harassment?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 1, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> What I wonder about is what justification is required for you to be followed by the police?



It is a pretty low threshold- a simple technical violation will do it.  I know a lot of people who are or were patrol/traffic cops, and almost all of them told me the same thing: if you follow any vehicle long enough, you will see something sufficient to warrant a stop.



> And, do cases of technical violations ever rise from being legally justified to being unjustified?  When does extra scrutiny turn into harassment?




Yes, and the line between when enforcement becomes harassment depends on the trier of fact in the lawsuit.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 1, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> My sense is that, towards the south of the USA, "Sir" is often used simply to be polite.




That is the impression I got. That's why it stands out so much to a visitor.


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

Umbran said:


> In the US, referring to a cop as "sir" or "officer" is pretty typical, no matter your skin color.




That and I think I've heard it more in some regions or with some demographics.

Out east, NJ area, I've seen it used in Kevin's Smiths films.  Like maybe they talk that way even to each other.

In TX, I've seen teens/young men who are trying to be formal when talking to an older person (like their parents raised them old fashioned like).


For the guy in the story, it's a smart play to be as polite and respectful as he can.  Though he shouldn't have to be so worried, fact is, the only one he can control on that interaction is himself and how he handled it.

What I find dumb is that after the Sandra Bland incident, every cop should have been briefed that you do not pull a black person over for a piddling traffic violation, you keep your cool, and you make sure you have an excellent reason for pulling them over.  Lawyers are looking for mistakes like that cop to give them a hook to bankrupt a municipality over this racist crap.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Sep 1, 2015)

I hesitate to get involved in this thread because I don't want people to think I'm trying to defend all law enforcement.  Bad cops need to be held accountable for their actions.  If that means criminal charges then that is what should happen.  If they need to be fired, then "offer them the opportunity to excel elsewhere".  I just retired as a police officer, and I can tell you that I would have left the job sooner if I could have.  My morale was pretty low, and stuff like the assumption by some that all cops are racist and/or corrupt really ground me down.
In 22 years I never shot anybody, never TASERed anybody, and pepper sprayed one drunk.  I did point my firearm at a few people and put the TASER laser dot on a few as well and I had to use physical force to make some arrests.  Those were situations where my training, the law, my "response to resistance" policy and common sense supported my actions.
I can try to answer some questions from a patrol officer's perspective, but I can't speak for the people involved.

As far as following someone because of prolonged eye contact?  Only if they looked like they might be intoxicated or in distress.  I don't know how to best describe it, but if you looked at me in my cruiser and looked worried or pleading I might look for a reason to stop you to make sure you were OK.  I stopped several cars over the years for minor violations that turned out to be "rolling domestics", but in all of those situations it was a female that was making eye contact with me.  A few times it was people who were lost and were afraid to flag me down and ask for directions.  In all of those stops though, my approach was to walk up to the car and ask if everything was OK.  I didn't ask for ID or anything, and the few times where there wasn't a more serious situation I gave a verbal warning for the stop and got the people going again ASAP.  I should note that my agency runs a plate on every stop so I know if the vehicle is stolen or has warrants before the actual traffic stop.  This also served to document our stops along with our dash cams.
We were just getting body cams as I retired.  I would have loved to have had one to go along with my dash cam.  My dash cam saved me from several false complaints, and a body cam would have been great insurance, as long as it worked.  The test and evaluation versions we tried often didn't have enough storage or battery life, and some of them were difficult to activate under stress.  I hope the ones they got work well.


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> I seriously don't think Republicanism has anything to do with it. There's an 18th century book written by a Frenchman regarding his experience in America (I don't know the book nor author, but saw it spoken of in a documentary), and in it he notes visiting a restaurant and everyone calling the waiter "sir", even though the waiter was obviously not knighted (the author considered it very funny to call a waiter, sir). He noted all Americans used "sir". I don't think its a relationship with authority as much as a term of respect to any person you don't really know and having some dealing with. On the other hand, since we don't have knights in the US, nobody is given the title "sir" before there name.




On a somewhat related note, I just had a conversation with somebody about this woman they knew who dressed very very male like and was at some store and got offended when the cashier called her "sir"

We are approaching a point in society where it's OK for gender lines to be blurry, and our polite/formal language collides because the speaker could not identify the gender correctly and didn't know to avoid it.

It's possible then that the PC crowd will make us stop using ma'am and sir so as not to offend anybody.


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 1, 2015)

Janx said:


> It's possible then that the PC crowd will make us stop using ma'am and sir so as not to offend anybody.




Well despite being conscientious of any person's race or gender, and make every effort to be polite, even in published works - that's just a personal creed. That said, I have little regard for the PC crowd and the entire PC practice. I see them with little difference than censors, and I'm not an advocate for censorship.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Sep 1, 2015)

Janx said:
			
		

> What I find dumb is that after the Sandra Bland incident, every cop should have been briefed that you do not pull a black person over for a piddling traffic violation, you keep your cool, and you make sure you have an excellent reason for pulling them over. Lawyers are looking for mistakes like that cop to give them a hook to bankrupt a municipality over this racist crap.




This kind of stuff drove me crazy when I was working.  Most of the time I did not know the race of the person I was pulling over.  I always tried to be professional, even when I was accused of profiling because I pulled a guy over at 0 dark 30 for failing to dim his high beams when we drove past each other.  I gave him a written warning while he accused me of being racist.  He wanted to know why I stopped him when there were drunks out on the roads and real crimes happening.
Failure to dim is often an indicator of impaired driving, but what good would it do to try to explain that to someone who is convinced they got pulled over for driving while black?

I always called people sir or ma'am on a stop.  It may be a regional thing, but I just saw it as being courteous and professional.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Sep 1, 2015)

I'll take What is a Police State for $100, Alec.


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

Lhorgrim said:


> This kind of stuff drove me crazy when I was working.  Most of the time I did not know the race of the person I was pulling over.  I always tried to be professional, even when I was accused of profiling because I pulled a guy over at 0 dark 30 for failing to dim his high beams when we drove past each other.  I gave him a written warning while he accused me of being racist.  He wanted to know why I stopped him when there were drunks out on the roads and real crimes happening.
> Failure to dim is often an indicator of impaired driving, but what good would it do to try to explain that to someone who is convinced they got pulled over for driving while black?
> 
> I always called people sir or ma'am on a stop.  It may be a regional thing, but I just saw it as being courteous and professional.




I'm pretty sure you were doing your job right.  

In the OT, the cop surely knew his race because the issue was eye contact.  At which point, the cop maybe should have considered this not worth the trouble.

Beats me, I don't have that job.  I just see that cops need to be double-careful these days because things look fishy from the other side of the traffic stop sometimes.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 1, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> I seriously don't think Republicanism has anything to do with it. There's an 18th century book written by a Frenchman regarding his experience in America (I don't know the book nor author, but saw it spoken of in a documentary), and in it he notes visiting a restaurant and everyone calling the waiter "sir", even though the waiter was obviously not knighted (the author considered it very funny to call a waiter, sir). He noted all Americans used "sir". I don't think its a relationship with authority as much as a term of respect to any person you don't really know and having some dealing with. On the other hand, since we don't have knights in the US, nobody is given the title "sir" before there name.




Of Democracy in America by Alexis de Toqueville?


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 1, 2015)

That's it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 1, 2015)

Janx said:


> It's possible then that the PC crowd will make us stop using ma'am and sir so as not to offend anybody.




Will they make you do it by threatening you with a gun? 

But if you just want to be respectful to the people you talk, you could always call people "comrades". It is innocent enough.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 1, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I dunno about that. I've been called it by random people in the U.S.  A woman on the bus in San Fransisco, for example, or someone asking for change.  Nothing to do with authority. .




Maybe this way there is no way you lack respect to a "social better".


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Will they make you do it by threatening you with a gun?
> 
> But if you just want to be respectful to the people you talk, you could always call people "comrades". It is innocent enough.




Good idea, Comrade.

We need never guess or refer to Comrade GamerPrinter's gender again.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 1, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Maybe this way there is no way you lack respect to a "social better".




Formal speech and address is typically developed from (historically) armed societies, as far as I can make out. Japan has a lot of custom, tradition, and speech all formally developed so that if you use it, you avoid any chance of mistakenly insulting someone or their honour and (again, historically) getting killed for it. It's detailed down to how how you bow, how you accept a gift, etc.  I wonder if in the U.S. the Wild West era contributes in a similar (though less extreme) fashion? Language developed to avoid  offence. 

All a WAG on my part.


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 1, 2015)

I don't know, calling someone "comrade" sounds communist to me.

Is there a question regarding my gender? I've met Morrus in person (Gencon 2007), he can tell you my gender is certainly male.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 1, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> I don't know, calling someone "comrade" sounds communist to me.
> 
> Is there a question regarding my gender? I've met Morrus in person (Gencon 2007), he can tell you my gender is certainly male.




Dude, I didn't look that closely!


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 1, 2015)

If you see the adam's apple or the wrist bones, that's enough - its how you tell a guy in a dress, is a guy in a dress and not a girl in a dress (well aside from the beard). You don't have to look any closer than that...


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> I don't know, calling someone "comrade" sounds communist to me.
> 
> Is there a question regarding my gender? I've met Morrus in person (Gencon 2007), he can tell you my gender is certainly male.




I was teasing, by picking another person in the discussion.  Apologies if that didn't read that way.

I assume Goldomark chose comrade for its communistic reference.  I just liked it because of that and it was gender neutral, while having that formal tone.


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> If you see the adam's apple or the wrist bones, that's enough - its how you tell a guy in a dress, is a guy in a dress and not a girl in a dress (well aside from the beard). You don't have to look any closer than that...




Do you mean like Ann Coulter and her adam's apple?


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 1, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Formal speech and address is typically developed from (historically) armed societies, as far as I can make out. Japan has a lot of custom, tradition, and speech all formally developed so that if you use it, you avoid any chance of mistakenly insulting someone or their honour and (again, historically) getting killed for it. It's detailed down to how how you bow, how you accept a gift, etc.  I wonder if in the U.S. the Wild West era contributes in a similar (though less extreme) fashion? Language developed to avoid  offence.
> 
> All a WAG on my part.




So, following the logic, it would mean Québec and the UK were rather peaceful or safe societies?


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 1, 2015)

Janx said:


> I was teasing, by picking another person in the discussion.  Apologies if that didn't read that way.
> 
> I assume Goldomark chose comrade for its communistic reference.  I just liked it because of that and it was gender neutral, while having that formal tone.




Yes, it was a bit tongue in cheek. Althought I'm not sure it should be discarded altogether because communism is teh ebil. It does put everyone on equal footing while remaining polite and friendly.


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 1, 2015)

Janx said:


> Do you mean like Ann Coulter and her adam's apple?




And you know Ann Coulter is a woman for certain?


----------



## Staffan (Sep 1, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Maybe this way there is no way you lack respect to a "social better".



There is no such thing as a "social better." All men, and women, are created equal.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 1, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So, following the logic, it would mean Québec and the UK were rather peaceful or safe societies?




One could argue the opposite - arms encourage peace. That said, the UK is certainly less armed. I don't know anything about Quebec's weapons laws.


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> And you know Ann Coulter is a woman for certain?




Nope.  I've heard jabs at her for not being an actual woman because of the adam's apple.  And she is a dick.

In any event, in the 21st century, if somebody wants to be called or considered a woman (or man), you have to accept that.

As a result, her gender persona is ambiguous if I am to go by the adam's apple rule vs. how she dresses.  The result being, much like the butch woman from my little side-story, a person is left to guessing, and at risk of getting it wrong.

Hence why I suspect language police will force us to not referencing gender in polite speech.  Thus, Comrade as the new generic honorific.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 1, 2015)

Staffan said:


> There is no such thing as a "social better." All men, and women, are created equal.




I agree, but not everyone believes that. Generally they are the ones who insist on being called "honorable", "sir", "doctor", "judge" or "officer", to name a few. Thus the quotation marks on social better.


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

Staffan said:


> There is no such thing as a "social better." All men, and women, are created equal.




That is an ideal or a fallacy.  

Since the dawn of rich people, they have always had the better words and the higher titles for each other and a lesser man that don't mind their P's and Q's to them doesn't get the deal they hope to get.

Heck, judges and lawyers get titles and honorifics like "Your Honor" and esquire that us mere peasants don't.

All people should be treated equally.  Especially under the law.  

But the fact is, they ain't all equal, otherwise I could hire anybody to be a .NET programmer.  And we'd all be born with $500,000 in a trust fund to ensure we'd be set for growing up and going to college.

And I sure as heck wouldn't meet such a variance of people who are stupider and clumsier than I am or smarter and more talented than myself.  Don't sound like they were created equal at all.

Heck, some babies are ugly, some aren't.  That's the very definition of created right there, leaving off what happens after.

To be clear, in my talk of folks who are or are not better than others, I am pretty sure that a person who lords their superiority over another most assuredly develops inferior traits and behaviors that effectively lower their quality considering.

It may happen that a person is better in every way than somebody else, until they become a dick about it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 1, 2015)

Morrus said:


> One could argue the opposite - arms encourage peace. That said, the UK is certainly less armed. I don't know anything about Quebec's weapons laws.




Pretty weaponless, except for some hunting rifles. We have a strong desire to control firearms and some of the lowest deaths by firearms in Canada. We have some of the lowest homicide rates period. Maybe it comes from the military using firearms on us a lot throughtout history?

As for "an armed society being a polite society", I'm more on the same page as David Frum: "As more armed, the more that those as yet unarmed feel compelled to arm themselves too. The technical term for this is: barbarism. https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/301064338389753856


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

Morrus said:


> One could argue the opposite - arms encourage peace. That said, the UK is certainly less armed. I don't know anything about Quebec's weapons laws.




I've heard Canadians are really polite.  And Weird Al references their guns in his Canadian Idiot parody.

I suspect in truth there is a washing out effect of arms vs. peace/politeness.

The old saying "and armed society is a polite society" might have some traction, but there's also the side effect that some folks with lawful possession guns start acting in a bullying fashion.  Having a gun on them makes them feel tough and their behavior degrades.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 1, 2015)

> Since the dawn of rich people...




Since the dawn of people, really.  If it wasn't wealth, it was force of arms  skill with weapons.  Alphas will demand recognition.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 1, 2015)

While an armed society may well be a polite society, it will also contain those who are of the "I have a hammer, where's something I can nail together?" mindset.  (And not all of them will be named Checkhov.)


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 1, 2015)

Janx said:


> I've heard Canadians are really polite.  And Weird Al references their guns in his Canadian Idiot parody.
> 
> I suspect in truth there is a washing out effect of arms vs. peace/politeness.
> 
> The old saying "and armed society is a polite society" might have some traction, but there's also the side effect that some folks with lawful possession guns start acting in a bullying fashion.  Having a gun on them makes them feel tough and their behavior degrades.




From up here, it looks like firearms are sold as empowerment to USians. Power to defend yourself and to defend against the government, but it looks more like false empowerment. Guns bring death and injury, not safety and the government will steamroll over any armed rebellion.


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Since the dawn of people, really.  If it wasn't wealth, it was force of arms  skill with weapons.  Alphas will demand recognition.




I'm pretty sure in modern society it's badwrongfun to voice such opinions that one is better than others.  Nobody likes a braggart, and there's some humility culture going on (as compared to Beowulf era where it was OK to say how awesome you are by recounting your deeds and lineage).

But there are plenty of people in high enough places who get treated as better and act as if they think they are better.  Some of them aren't (that degradation factor), but some folks really are just better people than such as myself.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 1, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It is a pretty low threshold- a simple technical violation will do it.  I know a lot of people who are or were patrol/traffic cops, and almost all of them told me the same thing: if you follow any vehicle long enough, you will see something sufficient to warrant a stop.




That would be a reason to pull someone over.  What is sufficient to allow them to be followed?

I accept that unequal surveillance is unavoidable: A police officer watching over a busy park will give different folks unequal views based partly on experience and partly on an ad-hoc sense of where to pay attention.  A person could have all sorts of reasons to stand out and draw attention.

But a policeman in a static situation seems very different than being tailed in a car for several miles.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Lhorgrim (Sep 2, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> That would be a reason to pull someone over.  What is sufficient to allow them to be followed?
> 
> I accept that unequal surveillance is unavoidable: A police officer watching over a busy park will give different folks unequal views based partly on experience and partly on an ad-hoc sense of where to pay attention.  A person could have all sorts of reasons to stand out and draw attention.
> 
> ...




As long as you are driving on a public roadway or publicly accessible area a traffic unit can follow you.  Sometimes I got behind people that I wasn't trying to follow but we ended up going the same way for a couple of miles.  I could see them checking me in the rear view.  Usually I was on the way to a dispatched call.  Sometimes when I was actually following somebody the computer would be running slow or dispatch would be busy and it would take awhile to get a license plate check back.  I might have to follow for a couple miles in that situation.  In my experience we usually followed cars because they got complained on as a DUI or a reckless driver.  We have to observe something to pull a car over, so most of the time the "reckless driver" that got called in drove fine for a mile or two and we went back to patrol.  Some of the DUIs we followed to get good video on the way they were weaving before we made the stop, and sometimes we had to wait for a safe place for both cars to pull over.  This just applies to traffic units, drug interdiction works a little differently.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While an armed society may well be a polite society...




Tell that to the Earp family.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 2, 2015)

I'm sure Earp family dinners were QUITE civil. 













...until the gravy ran out.


----------



## Janx (Sep 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm sure Earp family dinners were QUITE civil.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"Pass the yellow gravy"

"Are you calling me yella?"

BANG!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 2, 2015)

Janx said:


> "Pass the yellow gravy"
> 
> "Are you calling me yella?"
> 
> BANG!




"Did you just shoot your brother?"

"Hell, Ma, he just called me yella!"

BANG!

"Don't curse at the table!"


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 2, 2015)

A friend, who couldn't tie a knot to save his life, once asked me to tie him a little noose so that he could hang it from his rear view mirror. One day when we were driving to work he grabbed it and shook it at a cop, who was going the other way.

About an hour and a half later we were back on our way to work, after said cop had written him up for about a half dozen equipment violations (real or imagined). Fortunately we avoided the cavity search.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 2, 2015)

A longtime buddy told me of a friend of his-in a different crowd- who got pulled over.

When the driver rolled down his window, the officer asked him the usual question, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"

He looked around the interior of his car (there were no passengers), and then said, "I don't see any donuts in the car, sir; you tell me."

He spent the night in jail.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> About an hour and a half later we were back on our way to work, after said cop had written him up for about a half dozen equipment violations (real or imagined). Fortunately we avoided the cavity search.






Dannyalcatraz said:


> He spent the night in jail.




I think that we have far too many cases where cops get in people's faces for no good reason.  Folks should not get pulled over for being black, and such.

However, if you *actively and directly* seek to cheese off the cops, I have a hard time having a lot of sympathy for you.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 2, 2015)

Abuse of power is abuse of power. Ticking off a cop, volontarely or not, isn't a reason to end up in jail or get tickets. Tolerating it only leads to cops continuing to abuse their powers.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 2, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I think that we have far too many cases where cops get in people's faces for no good reason.  Folks should not get pulled over for being black, and such.
> 
> However, if you *actively and directly* seek to cheese off the cops, I have a hard time having a lot of sympathy for you.




I agree, but only partly.

Being rude will probably have consequences, but, you should still only be cited, detained, or arrested for having broken the law.

I'm presuming that the answer given was taken as failing to answer the officer, which seems to be interference.

Ah:

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69801



> Sec. 53a-167a. Interfering with an officer: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b or firefighter in the performance of such peace officer's, special policeman's or firefighter's duties.
> 
> (b) Interfering with an officer is a class A misdemeanor.
> 
> (1971, P.A. 871, S. 50; P.A. 76-225; P.A. 01-84, S. 11, 26; P.A. 05-180, S. 4.)




I have no idea what jurisdiction that is from.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Morrus (Sep 2, 2015)

Yeah. A night in jail for making fun of a police officer? I find that incredibly scary on a conceptual level. I'd expect that sort of thing in Russia, not in Western countries.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Sep 2, 2015)

I doubt that the arrest citation listed "smart ass" as the reason somebody was taken to jail.  Officers have to answer to prosecutors and judges eventually.  I took quite a bit of verbal abuse from people, but in my area you still have to have a chargeable offense to lodge someone in the jail.  Officers should have a thick skin.  That being said, if you were a jerk to me and also had a $50 warrant for some traffic violation you forgot to pay a couple years ago, I would most certainly serve it.  If you weren't a jerk I would advise you of the warrant and tell you to get it cleared up at the courthouse.  If you had a warrant for something more serious I had no choice but to take you in.  But, an officer that screwed over people just for being jerks wouldn't last very long.  Defense attorneys would eat a guy like that for breakfast. It also raises red flags for other disciplinary issues like excessive force.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Abuse of power is abuse of power. Ticking off a cop, volontarely or not, isn't a reason to end up in jail or get tickets. Tolerating it only leads to cops continuing to abuse their powers.




I have little sympathy for willful thoughtlessness or stupidity. 

Cops are humans.  They can only be expected to have the patience and restraint of well-trained humans, at best.  Our requiring them to be super-human is kind of like requiring that our wood-frame buildings support loads like steel-framed buildings.  The structure *will* fail if we do that, and it won't be the building's fault.  

If you are inciting the cop for no good purpose, then you are making the world worse for those of us who may need to stand up to a cop for a real purpose.  I may need to tell a cop to stick it at a moment that matters, and have him or her be patient enough to take it.  If you are choosing to erode the cop's patience for no particular good end, then you're effectively hurting me and my community.  If you get a ticket as a result, I'm okay with that.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 2, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Yeah. A night in jail for making fun of a police officer? I find that incredibly scary on a conceptual level. I'd expect that sort of thing in Russia, not in Western countries.




I imagine it's not because he was making fun of a police officer, but that he was doing so instead of simply answering the question.

The response seems overboard, though.  I give _some_ slack because the question is a part of a trick, which is to get the responder to admit to an infraction.  I've heard some guidelines which say to not use this approach, but I also gather that the approach remains common.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Janx (Sep 2, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I imagine it's not because he was making fun of a police officer, but that he was doing so instead of simply answering the question.
> 
> The response seems overboard, though.  I give _some_ slack because the question is a part of a trick, which is to get the responder to admit to an infraction.  I've heard some guidelines which say to not use this approach, but I also gather that the approach remains common.
> 
> ...




Technically, if a lawyer was sitting next to you during the "do you know why I stopped you?" story, he might advise you to not answer or plead the 5th.

Talking to cops is dangerous, not just from being black. Anything you say may be used against you.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 2, 2015)

Lhorgrim said:


> I doubt that the arrest citation listed "smart ass" as the reason somebody was taken to jail.  Officers have to answer to prosecutors and judges eventually.  I took quite a bit of verbal abuse from people, but in my area you still have to have a chargeable offense to lodge someone in the jail.  Officers should have a thick skin.  That being said, if you were a jerk to me and also had a $50 warrant for some traffic violation you forgot to pay a couple years ago, I would most certainly serve it.  If you weren't a jerk I would advise you of the warrant and tell you to get it cleared up at the courthouse.  If you had a warrant for something more serious I had no choice but to take you in.  But, an officer that screwed over people just for being jerks wouldn't last very long.  Defense attorneys would eat a guy like that for breakfast. It also raises red flags for other disciplinary issues like excessive force.




The expression used up here is, "He failed the attitude test."



Umbran said:


> I have little sympathy for willful thoughtlessness or stupidity.
> 
> Cops are humans.  They can only be expected to have the patience and restraint of well-trained humans, at best.  Our requiring them to be super-human is kind of like requiring that our wood-frame buildings support loads like steel-framed buildings.  The structure *will* fail if we do that, and it won't be the building's fault.
> 
> If you are inciting the cop for no good purpose, then you are making the world worse for those of us who may need to stand up to a cop for a real purpose.  I may need to tell a cop to stick it at a moment that matters, and have him or her be patient enough to take it.  If you are choosing to erode the cop's patience for no particular good end, then you're effectively hurting me and my community.  If you get a ticket as a result, I'm okay with that.




Another old expression: Don't poke the bear. While an incident like the one I described could easily be construed as an abuse of power it's hard to feel sorry for someone who calls attention to himself, then actually gets said attention.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Sep 2, 2015)

Janx said:


> Technically, if a lawyer was sitting next to you during the "do you know why I stopped you?" story, he might advise you to not answer or plead the 5th.
> 
> Talking to cops is dangerous, not just from being black. Anything you say may be used against you.




No academy teaches the "Do you know why I stopped you" approach anymore.  I know some officers still use it, but it's just laziness or falling out of practice on the modern way to do it.
What you should hear is something like "Good morning.  I'm Officer Meepo with the Greyhawk police department.  I stopped you because you failed to come to a complete stop at the stop sign at Merchant Street.  I need to see your driver's license and proof of insurance please." I might also ask for the registration if dispatch alerted me it was expired. 
If you were speeding I would usually ask if there was an emergency I needed to know about.  I did run across some medical emergencies that I sent on to the hospital.  We didn't do emergency escorts due to liability issues.  Years ago a man was having a heart attack and his wife was rushing him to the hospital in the western part of the state.  The officer didn't send them on, and instead asked a bunch of questions about why they didn't call an ambulance or something.  The man died prior to getting to the hospital and after that our training started addressing how to handle medical emergencies on a traffic stop.
Side note: In KY most municipal police department's policies are written or approved by the Kentucky League of Cities, which is the insurer for local governments.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 2, 2015)

Last thing first: we recently had an incident in which a pro athlete was pulled over for speeding.  He explained he was rushing to the hospital because his mother was in critical condition.  Instead of letting him go with a warning or escorting the car to the destination, the officer assumed he was being jacked with, and prolonged the stop.

The athlete's mom died before he got to the hospital.  The cop lost his job.

Next...

Re: the donut story: we don't know what a the reason the cop put down on the arrest paperwork, but it wasn't JUST for violating Wheaton's Law.  Remember, he DID pull the smartass over for a reason.  Whatever it was*, the driver's confrontational attitude moved it from possibly being a just stop & warning or stop & ticket to stop & spend a night in jail.  



> Don't poke the bear.




Especially when that bear is a Smokey.





* No, a lack of donuts in a car is not a violation of the Texas traffic rules.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 3, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Yeah. A night in jail for making fun of a police officer? I find that incredibly scary on a conceptual level. I'd expect that sort of thing in Russia, not in Western countries.




And, as Danny has noted, probably not what happened.  The guy got pulled over first.  Now, even with all the trouble we have with police these days, I'm still willing to bet that the majority of stops are for legitimate reasons.  Not necessarily serious reasons, but legally legit - you have a broken taillight, were speeding, blew through a stop sign, or the like.  

So, the cop probably already has something on you.  When you are *already* facing possible citation, escalating by being a wiseacre is monumentally dumb.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 3, 2015)

As my father calls it, revenue enhancements, the money goes to the city/county budgets.  Citation are issues based on the odds people will just pay them.  

I got a ticket a number of years ago for running a red light, the cop was a half a block IN FRONT, moving in the same direction, and said they saw it in their rear view mirror!  It was dark and there were trees hanging over the road blocking the light, which was the light for the lane going in the opposite direction!  The judge sided with the cop.  Still pisses me off.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 3, 2015)

Janx said:


> Talking to cops is dangerous, not just from being black. Anything you say may be used against you.



I'm afraid you just live in the wrong country.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I have little sympathy for willful thoughtlessness or stupidity.



Neither do I, but stupidity is not a reason to be in jail. Abuse of power should never be excused and certainly not tolerated. It is that attitude that leads to unarmed people getting shot and cops walking free.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 3, 2015)

Yeah, not having sympathy for somebody and imprisoning them and depriving them of their liberty are two very different things.

But, like folks have said, there's clearly more to the story. The arrest must have been for an actual crime not mentioned here, and the smart ass remark just served to ruin his chances of being let off with a warning.

Presumably it was more than just a speeding ticket.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 3, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Neither do I, but stupidity is not a reason to be in jail.




Incorrect.  It can be.  For example, the crime of negligent manslaughter (and many instances of vehicular manslaughter) and several other crimes amount to, "You were dumb, and something bad happened as a result."



> Abuse of power should never be excused




In neither case do we have the entire story, but in neither do we have clear evidence of abuse of power.

Noose-guy initiates aggressive posturing towards the officer while operating a vehicle - that, right there, is probable clause to pull him over, if only to determine if he's impaired by alcohol or drugs, as that behavior is unusual.  Having done that, it is entirely on the up-and-up to peg you for any obvious technical issues the cop may find. In effect, the guy shouted from across the street for the cop to come and search him for actionable items, so the guy drives away with several tickets.  No abuse of power. 

The other gent got pulled over, and therefore (despite the news these days) we can assume there was likely a legally actionable issue at hand.  While we do not know the full story, we can probably assume the interchange did not *end* with the donuts comment.  Continuing in that line (failing to give straight answers to questions, for example) would eventually amount to obstructing the officer in the line of duty, which is itself actionable.  While abuse of power is possible in this case, it is also possible the officer was legally justified.

In both cases, though, we have people being stupid when they shouldn't have.  Rather than rail against the thing that *might* have happened, we note the thing we do know happened - stupidity.  

There is a major point to note that it is possible for *both* the citizen and the cop to be in the wrong.  Just because a cop may have overstepped his bounds does not excuse wrongs by the suspect.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Incorrect.  It can be.  For example, the crime of negligent manslaughter (and many instances of vehicular manslaughter) and several other crimes amount to, "You were dumb, and something bad happened as a result."




More like, "You chose to do something that you should have known was stupid", I would think.



> In neither case do we have the entire story, but in neither do we have clear evidence of abuse of power.
> 
> Noose-guy initiates aggressive posturing towards the officer while operating a vehicle - that, right there, is probable clause to pull him over, if only to determine if he's impaired by alcohol or drugs, as that behavior is unusual.  Having done that, it is entirely on the up-and-up to peg you for any obvious technical issues the cop may find. In effect, the guy shouted from across the street for the cop to come and search him for actionable items, so the guy drives away with several tickets.  No abuse of power.
> 
> ...




In the case of noose guy he was momentarily impaired by stupidity. Your analogy is spot-on.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 3, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> More like, "You chose to do something that you should have known was stupid", I would think.




Yeah, fair enough.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Incorrect.  It can be.  For example, the crime of negligent manslaughter (and many instances of vehicular manslaughter) and several other crimes amount to, "You were dumb, and something bad happened as a result."



Now you're just being pedantic.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 3, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> More like, "You chose to do something that you should have known was stupid", I would think.




Ain't being stupid sort of being oblivious to your stupidity?


----------



## Staffan (Sep 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I think that we have far too many cases where cops get in people's faces for no good reason.  Folks should not get pulled over for being black, and such.
> 
> However, if you *actively and directly* seek to cheese off the cops, I have a hard time having a lot of sympathy for you.



As a matter of principle, mocking and challenging authority are inherently good things.

That doesn't mean it's generally a smart move, but the world would be a better place if authorities were mocked more often and thus learned not to take themselves seriously.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I think that we have far too many cases where cops get in people's faces for no good reason.  Folks should not get pulled over for being black, and such.
> 
> However, if you *actively and directly* seek to cheese off the cops, I have a hard time having a lot of sympathy for you.




But see, that's when the abuse of power is at its greatest. Cops shouldn't get to throw people in jail because they piss them off. That's personal tyranny in action.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 3, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Ain't being stupid sort of being oblivious to your stupidity?




The difference between it being just plain stupidity, and rising to the level of criminal stupidity, is essentially a wilfulness in the act. For example you throw a cinder block over your two metre high fence onto the sidewalk, knowing that people could be walking by, and don't bother to check first to see if anyone was there. You crush someone's head and kill him. Criminal. Whether or not you are truly oblivious to your own stupidity, the measure is that a reasonable person would have known the danger. Barring mental defect or extenuating circumstance, you're on the hook.

This can also apply to a failure to act. If you know that the grating over the alligator pit under your front step is loose and don't repair it, and the mailman falls through and is eaten, then your also on the hook (in many jurisdictions, but not all).

This is why the woman who stopped on the road to help the poor little duckies get off the road recently, near Montreal, was guilty of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 3, 2015)

billd91 said:


> But see, that's when the abuse of power is at its greatest. Cops shouldn't get to throw people in jail because they piss them off. That's personal tyranny in action.




In most cases yes, however, if you actively seek to piss them off during an investigation, it's obstruction.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Sep 3, 2015)

billd91 said:


> But see, that's when the abuse of power is at its greatest. Cops shouldn't get to throw people in jail because they piss them off. That's personal tyranny in action.




That's true... if it actually happens.  Every story I've ever been told about someone being thrown in jail "just for pissing off a cop" has failed to stand up to any scrutiny.  An officer just can't take someone to jail without a criminal charge. 
It can look that way sometimes though.  Say I stop a car for a traffic violation.  Driver refuses to provide ID or give his/her information.  I could take that person to jail for a simple traffic violation because I'm unable to cite them to court.  Also they will not receive a bond at the jail until they see a judge unless they provide their info or ID.  I never had that happen.  I always warned people what would happen, and they always gave me enough info to issue the ticket.  In some states refusal to sign a ticket will get you a trip to jail.  In KY the tickets aren't signed by the recipient.  If you don't take care of the ticket or come to court...Failure to Appear warrant.
When you hear the stories about people getting arrested for "mouthing off" I would ask that you view them with some perspective.  Often the person telling the tale will leave out some details that might change the scenario.  
I am positive that there are officers that lose their cool and make bad arrests.  They are responsible for those arrests and if a supervisor doesn't nail them, the prosecutor, the judge, or a defense attorney will.  Also, the actual victim of a false arrest has recourse.  If you are arrested, you will get your day in court if you want it.  Any defense attorney worth their salt will crucify an officer that made a bad arrest.  That includes public defenders.  They may be overworked, but I've never met one that didn't know their business.  The ACLU is just waiting for good cases of officer misconduct if the public defender doesn't have the time.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 3, 2015)

Lhorgrim said:


> That's true... if it actually happens.  Every story I've ever been told about someone being thrown in jail "just for pissing off a cop" has failed to stand up to any scrutiny.  An officer just can't take someone to jail without a criminal charge.
> It can look that way sometimes though.  Say I stop a car for a traffic violation.  Driver refuses to provide ID or give his/her information.  I could take that person to jail for a simple traffic violation because I'm unable to cite them to court.  Also they will not receive a bond at the jail until they see a judge unless they provide their info or ID.  I never had that happen.  I always warned people what would happen, and they always gave me enough info to issue the ticket.  In some states refusal to sign a ticket will get you a trip to jail.  In KY the tickets aren't signed by the recipient.  If you don't take care of the ticket or come to court...Failure to Appear warrant.
> When you hear the stories about people getting arrested for "mouthing off" I would ask that you view them with some perspective.  Often the person telling the tale will leave out some details that might change the scenario.
> I am positive that there are officers that lose their cool and make bad arrests.  They are responsible for those arrests and if a supervisor doesn't nail them, the prosecutor, the judge, or a defense attorney will.  Also, the actual victim of a false arrest has recourse.  If you are arrested, you will get your day in court if you want it.  Any defense attorney worth their salt will crucify an officer that made a bad arrest.  That includes public defenders.  They may be overworked, but I've never met one that didn't know their business.  The ACLU is just waiting for good cases of officer misconduct if the public defender doesn't have the time.




You might want to review some of the incidents surrounding the Toronto G20 summits, in 2010. While some incidents did result in prosecutions, in one case that was decided recently the conviction of a police superintendent on misconduct charges, the vast majority of incidents could not involve prosecution due to an inability to identify the officers involved. Given, that's a rather singular situation, but that sort of thing does happen.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Sep 3, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> You might want to review some of the incidents surrounding the Toronto G20 summits, in 2010. While some incidents did result in prosecutions, in one case that was decided recently the conviction of a police superintendent on misconduct charges, the vast majority of incidents could not involve prosecution due to an inability to identify the officers involved. Given, that's a rather singular situation, but that sort of thing does happen.




I'm not familiar with the details, but Wiki says over 1000 people were arrested and seems to link the arrests to a riot.  Excessive force seems to be the main issue in the entry, though some questionable arrests and tactics are mentioned after the initial disturbance.
I don't have much experience with civil disturbance situations.  We did have some Black Bloc members at the 2000 Vice Presidential debate, but they didn't try to get through the perimeter to the debate venue.  They marched and blocked some streets but didn't engage in any violence, so we didn't respond. 
I don't condone the law enforcement tactics at the summit, but I'm not familiar enough with the situation to say how they should have done it instead.  I'm not sure how the Canadian system works with criminal charges, but in my area every arrest would be required to have an officer's name attached.  It would be easy to hold someone accountable for a bad arrest.  In a riot situation where mass arrests are made, the ground supervisor would be responsible.  We call it vicarious liability.  Ultimately, I feel, the chief/agency head is responsible for civil disturbance response if individual officers can't be identified.  The chief should make damn sure that there is a way to secure accountability among the rank and file.  I think body cams are part of the solution, but they present their own issues.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 3, 2015)

Recently a protester won 15,000$ after suing the police because they violated his right by detaining him for 5 days. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...-pay-15-000-to-activist-jaggi-singh-1.3205040

Aside from the violation of rights being unacceptable, that it took 8 years and still could be appeal is an aberration by itself. It why we do not see more cases like these. Who has the time, money and will power to go through this? This means cops get impuinity because going after them is just not worth it for individuals.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Sep 3, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Recently a protester won 15,000$ after suing the police because they violated his right by detaining him for 5 days. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...-pay-15-000-to-activist-jaggi-singh-1.3205040
> 
> Aside from the violation of rights being unacceptable, that it took 8 years and still could be appeal is an aberration by itself. It why we do not see more cases like these. Who has the time, money and will power to go through this? This means cops get impuinity because going after them is just not worth it for individuals.




I read the article you linked.  It says the officers arrested him for attending an International Women's Day rally in 2007.  They saw "Singh, who had a previous conviction, was forbidden from being on the scene of an event that is not peaceful".  The officers contended that the rally wasn't peaceful due to "a crowd that was hostile and yelled out insults" and took him into custody.  He was in custody for 5 days while he maintained the event was peaceful.  Charges were dropped and he was released.  In mid 2015 he was awarded $15k from the constables.

Sounds like a sketchy arrest because the crowd wasn't making threats or damaging property.  It is an unusual case, because it sounds as if it would have been a good arrest if someone in the crowd had broken a window or threatened to burn down city hall.  This guy wasn't being charged with his actions, he was tagged for a restriction placed on him, I assume by a court?  It doesn't say why the case took so long to get through court.  Is it a difference in the civil court system?  Also don't know why a guy would be held for 5 days.  Is there a bond system and he couldn't bond out?  It never went to trial, so I'm guessing the prosecutor chose to drop charges?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 3, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Aside from the violation of rights being unacceptable, that it took 8 years and still could be appeal is an aberration by itself. It why we do not see more cases like these. Who has the time, money and will power to go through this? This means cops get impuinity because going after them is just not worth it for individuals.




yes, now note that this case is from 8 years ago.

In the US, today, that is quickly becoming less and less a threat - the ubiquity of cell-phone movies and social media makes heavy abuse problematic for the cops.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 3, 2015)

Lhorgrim said:


> This guy wasn't being charged with his actions, he was tagged for a restriction placed on him, I assume by a court?



Yes.  



> It doesn't say why the case took so long to get through court.



The 8 years? Rather standard.  



> Is it a difference in the civil court system?



This is a criminal court case.  



> Also don't know why a guy would be held for 5 days.



If you break court orders, you go to jail.  



> Is there a bond system and he couldn't bond out?



There is, but if cops decide you stay behind bars, you stay. Whether is it legal or not. 



> It never went to trial, so I'm guessing the prosecutor chose to drop charges?



Yup.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> yes, now note that this case is from 8 years ago.
> 
> In the US, today, that is quickly becoming less and less a threat - the ubiquity of cell-phone movies and social media makes heavy abuse problematic for the cops.




You're far more optimistic than me. 

I see cops getting caught on cams, but often getting off without charges anyway. I cite the Tamir Rice and Eric Garner as examples. It takes more than cameras to change things. It takes a justice system willing to procecute offenders, but procecutors and judges work along side cops, so they are more forgiving to them*. It also takes indignation for the population, which isn't a given**. Maybe I just see the glass half empty. 

*http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/montreal...g-officer-who-killed-child-in-crash-1.2112657 The cop finally was charged for the death in mai, but it took political interference for it to happen. That is also problematic. 

**http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/...uestion_15215.xml?uuid=JdV8dIbKEeSrz1o9ezsguA


----------



## Lhorgrim (Sep 3, 2015)

[MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], 8 years is incredibly long for a criminal case here.  Almost unheard of.  I could see a civil case dragging on that long maybe.  Here a judge decides bond, and if you make it you're out until trial date.  A prosecutor can review the charges and drop them before court if they don't feel it's a good case.  
Generally officers have immunity if they make a bad arrest, as long as they acted in good faith.  I take you in for DUI because you were weaving and had balance issues.  I don't smell alcohol but believe you are on prescription meds.  You bring a doctor's statement to the prosecutor or to court and show that you have a medical condition that mimics intoxication.  Charges are dropped, but the officer isn't charged because the arrest met a reasonableness standard.  However, if I stop you and you exhibit no indicators of impaired driving and I arrest you anyway, then I could be charged with false arrest.  More likely you would go for a civil payout and try to get the city's insurance to write you a check.


----------



## Janx (Sep 3, 2015)

Staffan said:


> As a matter of principle, mocking and challenging authority are inherently good things.
> 
> That doesn't mean it's generally a smart move, but the world would be a better place if authorities were mocked more often and thus learned not to take themselves seriously.




I surprised nobody countered this.

Taken literally, I don't see how mocking and challenging authority are ALWAYS good things, and thus not necessarily "inherently good things"

Taking Umbran's point from another thread a while back about the hunt for the boston marathon bombers.  When the cops said "stay inside", bostonians kept their butts inside while the cops ran around shooting at the bad guys.  As he indicated, it was a good thing folks didn't argue and did what they were told.

I think it is good to take down people who abuse their position of authority.  But until you know an authority person is abusive, that does not seem to qualify them for disrespect, just because of their job.  Because that is the very point of putting someone in authority, so they have the lawful right to exert control on situations under their domain.


----------



## Janx (Sep 3, 2015)

Lhorgrim said:


> [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], 8 years is incredibly long for a criminal case here.  Almost unheard of.  I could see a civil case dragging on that long maybe.  Here a judge decides bond, and if you make it you're out until trial date.  A prosecutor can review the charges and drop them before court if they don't feel it's a good case.
> Generally officers have immunity if they make a bad arrest, as long as they acted in good faith.  I take you in for DUI because you were weaving and had balance issues.  I don't smell alcohol but believe you are on prescription meds.  You bring a doctor's statement to the prosecutor or to court and show that you have a medical condition that mimics intoxication.  Charges are dropped, but the officer isn't charged because the arrest met a reasonableness standard.  However, if I stop you and you exhibit no indicators of impaired driving and I arrest you anyway, then I could be charged with false arrest.  More likely you would go for a civil payout and try to get the city's insurance to write you a check.




Which could take 8 years to get that check.

And you might not be in a position to get a lawyer to fight for you.

There are lots of people who get screwed by governments and by civil suit-worthy issues (aka businesses, people etc) that just lump it because they do not have the means to pursue it.

I myself am out $500 deductible due to a no-insurance, no license idiot who hit my truck because Allstate couldn't squeeze it out of him (they tried to get my deductible and their money back from him via debt collectors).  I don't have time, money or energy to hunt that idiot down.  Should have claimed his truck when he came back after he ran and somebody chased him down.

So I have no faith in everybody getting the justice they deserve.  There's too much "need money to get money" built into the system.

Heck, those pokemon idiots are going to spend at least 4 months in jail before they get their day in court.  Which means if they were innocent in some way (remember that innocent before proven guilty concept), they will suffer the ill-effects of not being at work, etc for nothing.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Sep 3, 2015)

Janx said:


> Which could take 8 years to get that check.
> 
> And you might not be in a position to get a lawyer to fight for you.
> 
> ...




I agree 100% that the court system is...not good.
Going after businesses or private citizens can cost more than you have and big business can stall the little guy out.  Going after government is easier if you have any kind of case though.  They have deep pockets, but they have insurance companies that make the call on settling a case or going to court.  Most places will settle because it's cost effective.
The people I worked with never referred to the court system as the "justice system", because justice seems to be rare in court.  As disgusted as many people are with the courts, there are many officers that feel the same way.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 3, 2015)

Going after the government is NEVER easy.  Not in the USA, at least.


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 3, 2015)

Janx said:


> I myself am out $500 deductible due to a no-insurance, no license idiot who hit my truck because Allstate couldn't squeeze it out of him (they tried to get my deductible and their money back from him via debt collectors).  I don't have time, money or energy to hunt that idiot down.  Should have claimed his truck when he came back after he ran and somebody chased him down.
> 
> So I have no faith in everybody getting the justice they deserve.  There's too much "need money to get money" built into the system.




I know what you mean.

A friend of mine was cut-off by a woman in an SUV during icy conditions on an Interstate, which caused him to spin out control, cross the medium and get T-boned by an oncoming truck, which broke his neck and totaled his vehicle, but he survived (almost completely recovered). However, though the woman was at fault, she caused 12 other accidents that day in exactly the same way (cutting people off), before and after causing his. Because there were so many victims, her insurance could only cover so much damage before being spent, thus he never got money from her nor her insurance company for very high medical expenses.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 3, 2015)

Janx said:


> Taking Umbran's point from another thread a while back about the hunt for the boston marathon bombers.  When the cops said "stay inside", bostonians kept their butts inside while the cops ran around shooting at the bad guys.  As he indicated, it was a good thing folks didn't argue and did what they were told.




Yes, that is a good example - there are times when you really ought to listen to a cop.  I am all for questioning authority when it looks like they are screwing up.  

But, you know, that cop directing traffic?  I'm going to just let him do his job, without mocking or challenging him.  There is no goodness to be found in making his day more difficult.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 3, 2015)

Lhorgrim said:


> I'm not familiar with the details, but Wiki says over 1000 people were arrested and seems to link the arrests to a riot.  Excessive force seems to be the main issue in the entry, though some questionable arrests and tactics are mentioned after the initial disturbance.
> I don't have much experience with civil disturbance situations.  We did have some Black Bloc members at the 2000 Vice Presidential debate, but they didn't try to get through the perimeter to the debate venue.  They marched and blocked some streets but didn't engage in any violence, so we didn't respond.
> I don't condone the law enforcement tactics at the summit, but I'm not familiar enough with the situation to say how they should have done it instead.  I'm not sure how the Canadian system works with criminal charges, but in my area every arrest would be required to have an officer's name attached.  It would be easy to hold someone accountable for a bad arrest.  In a riot situation where mass arrests are made, the ground supervisor would be responsible.  We call it vicarious liability.  Ultimately, I feel, the chief/agency head is responsible for civil disturbance response if individual officers can't be identified.  The chief should make damn sure that there is a way to secure accountability among the rank and file.  I think body cams are part of the solution, but they present their own issues.




There were certainly Black Bloc situations and several police cruisers were burnt. Against those animals, were I in charge, I'd have authorized the use of "less lethal" means to subdue and capture them. I suppose that's why I'm not a cop.

Masses of people were detained without cause. In many cases people were detained who just happened to be in the area, but were not taking part in any protest activities. This has been confirmed through multiple sources. 

There were also the infamous "kettling" incidents in which large numbers of people were swept up and detained for hours, in the sort of conditions you might expect in a backwater Mexican jail. Unsanitary conditions. No food or water for perhaps 24 hours. Overcrowded. It was for this that the Superintendent was convicted.

Additionally, accountability was virtually non existent because many officers removed their name tags. Given how they were dressed and that they were drawn from departments across the Province, that made identification virtually impossible without the co-operation of brother officers. That, obviously, was not forthcoming.

I'm generally very pro law enforcement. I think that officers should be given great latitude until they breach the public trust, at which point such officers should be landed upon with jack-booted feet. This series of incidents gave Canadian policing a black eye that it may never recover from.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 3, 2015)

goldomark said:


> The 8 years? Rather standard.




Eight years is far from 'standard.' Criminal cases are generally resolved in 5 years or less. Cases that take longer, like this one or the Toronto police corruption case that took 15 years to run to completion are of note precisely because they are so far beyond the pale. Generally speaking simple criminal cases go to trial within 2-3 years and are resolved rather quickly, once they do.



Lhorgrim said:


> [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], 8 years is incredibly long for a criminal case here.  Almost unheard of.  I could see a civil case dragging on that long maybe.  Here a judge decides bond, and if you make it you're out until trial date.  A prosecutor can review the charges and drop them before court if they don't feel it's a good case.
> Generally officers have immunity if they make a bad arrest, as long as they acted in good faith.  I take you in for DUI because you were weaving and had balance issues.  I don't smell alcohol but believe you are on prescription meds.  You bring a doctor's statement to the prosecutor or to court and show that you have a medical condition that mimics intoxication.  Charges are dropped, but the officer isn't charged because the arrest met a reasonableness standard.  However, if I stop you and you exhibit no indicators of impaired driving and I arrest you anyway, then I could be charged with false arrest.  More likely you would go for a civil payout and try to get the city's insurance to write you a check.




The good faith exception also applies here. It takes willful misconduct or negligence to breach the exception. in general. Even then it's a tough row to hoe. I was trying to follow a case involving an officer who occasionally acted as a spokesman for the Ontario Provincial Police, who had falsified charges under our Provincial racing and stunting legislation (immediate loss of license and impoundment of vehicle for 7 days, accused pays storage fees, no recourse nor recovery). I even took time off work to try and attend. Multiple continuances. Unannounced venue changes. In the end I never managed to attend a single hearing, though I knew in advance where they were _supposed _to be. The officer went for trial by judge (usually a good indicator of someone who is hoping for a technical acquittal, rather than someone who is innocent). In the judge's summation he essentially said 'we both know that you did it, but I cannot make a finding in law that you did.'


----------



## Lhorgrim (Sep 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yes, that is a good example - there are times when you really ought to listen to a cop.  I am all for questioning authority when it looks like they are screwing up.
> 
> But, you know, that cop directing traffic?  I'm going to just let him do his job, without mocking or challenging him.  There is no goodness to be found in making his day more difficult.




I want to thank you for this.  

Some of the worst treatment I ever got as an officer was while directing traffic.  People who are ordinarily nice can get pretty mean in traffic, and the mean people can achieve new heights of vitriol.  You expect somebody you're taking to jail to be angry, but parades and 5K runs were almost as bad.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 3, 2015)

Lhorgrim said:


> I want to thank you for this.
> 
> Some of the worst treatment I ever got as an officer was while directing traffic.  People who are ordinarily nice can get pretty mean in traffic, and the mean people can achieve new heights of vitriol.  You expect somebody you're taking to jail to be angry, but parades and 5K runs were almost as bad.




I can believe it! I worked my way through college working in the parking lots of Pearson International Airport, starting out as a parking attendant. The number of times that I was purposely bumped by a car, had my feet run over, or had someone actually charge at me with their vehicle were beyond count.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 4, 2015)

Lhorgrim said:


> [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], 8 years is incredibly long for a criminal case here.



The 8 years was civil. Why he couldn't be in a protest was criminal. I wasn't clear.


----------

