Minneapolis PD Suspect Dies On Video While Handcuffed. FBI Investigating.

[Sanch]

For 20 years now I’ve been thinking “I bet if we got rid of speeding laws, people who hate the police less” So here’s my thoughts on the traffic thing.

Speeding is not Generally dangerous if done within reason, it amplifies the potential damage caused by an accident.

More dangerous than speeding is differential from average speed around you. If you’re driving the speed limit but everyone else is 20mph over it, you’re the dangerous one.

Driving in the passing lane is more dangerous than speeding but it seems like cops pull people over for speeding more than for being an asshole and blocking the left lane, which then encourages people around the asshole to do dangerous shit to get around them.

Speeding is a popular reason to pull people over because it’s easily measured objectively unlike blocking the passing lane which has some subjectivity to it.

Cops like to pull people over because I think most arrests come from traffic stops. Idk if it’s true but I think 50% to 90% of all arrests for any crime are made during traffic stops because that’s how people with warrants are found.

Administration likes cops to write tickets because it’s money in their pocket.

If we removed the financial motivation and banned cops from running drivers for warrants or looking for illegal drugs, I’d bet 99% reduction in total traffic stops. What’s the point if you can’t catch a potential arrest and the dept can’t get paid? And if I’m right, it proves speeding by itself isn’t a danger to public safety.

As far as not running them for warrants, it could expose the officer to danger because what if the person in the car is a wanted felon and might shoot the cop? Shouldn’t the cop run the driver for warrants before exiting his vehicle? Well what if no warrants are found, does the cop relax his guard? If a patient isn’t known HIV positive do EMTs not wear gloves? But, if the driver had warrants but knew the police wasn’t allowed to check during a traffic stop, that driver would probably not try to get in a shootout with police because there would be no need to. If they were polite they’d be let go.

And yes, running someone for warrants on a traffic stop is efficient because they can find criminals. There was a crime scene down my block a few days ago and I approached the cop and asked what happened. If the efficiency principle applied, maybe he should have ran me for warrants while we talked. Maybe cops should run everyone for warrants at all times, their waiter during lunch, their kids soccer coach, soon we can have google glasses with facial recognition and they can automatically run warrants on everyone visible in public. So why is a traffic stop some special scenario where we have decided going 5 MPH over the speed limits negates you from not being run for warrants? It just seems like cops started doing it, had great success catching Wanted criminals who were also shitty drivers, and cops never stopped. But I could imagine a world where cops didn’t run traffic stops through NCIS, much like cops don’t run every interaction on foot for warrants, and in that world some statist proposes the idea of running all traffic stops for warrants, and people lose their shit at the goverment overreach. But since it’s common place today, we don’t question it.

Now, am I a lunatic anarchist? No, my idea would be to replace traffic violations with criminal reckless endangerment laws. If the driver is really doing something dangerous on the road, send them to jail. If they make a mistake and “drive a bit too fast” then either don’t stop them all because it wasn’t really dangerous, or stop them and give them a verbal warning. Possibly record the warning on their license record like a ticket and if a driver keeps getting verbal warnings, they lose their license. But the cop isn’t allowed to fish for warrants/drugs/guns nor make any money off the stop so the number of stops would drop significantly down to the ones the cop really saw something dangerous.

The system right now is ridiculous. That police get a monetary incentive to ticket people and make a not insignificant number of the their arrests because of the traffic stops.

All else equal, I think lots of middle class people who are on the fence or possibly have a slight dislike of police would love the police as much as firemen if there were no speeding tickets.

To reiterate, this would not legalize reckless dangerous driving. If someone is really dangerous and reckless, they should go to prison similar to waving a loaded gun around a crowd of people. And/or have their drivers license suspended, similar to losing gun rights as a prohibited person if you misuse a gun. Not just bribe your way out of the charge by paying the cop off with $500 in fines that get direct benefit from.

I’m quite shocked driving recklessly, swerving through traffic while texting somehow has less of a penalty than brandishing a firearm. You’re commanding a 4,000 pound block of steel at 80 miles per hour and can very easily kill someone if you’re reckless, the same as if you’re waving a loaded gun around.

I apologize if I come across as arrogant here, I’m just saying these are ideas I’ve had, I’m no cop and usually my ideas get shit on by my cop friends so I’m open to constructive criticism on these ideas.

Also, I have no personal bias here. I’ve been pulled over exactly twice in the last 20 years, both were warnings and I do drive pretty fast. Both of the times I was pulled over it was massive fishing going on, even admitted by cop, one was late night near bars, dui enforement and second was a wal mart parking lot in an uppity rich person town. Both times the cops were very respectable and nice.

Let’s be honest here, there so many traffic laws, a cop can follow any driver for a few minutes and develop PC for a stop, which now let’s them run the driver for warrants and look for illegal stuff in plain sight in the car. Could our founding fathers really have envisioned that as reasonable for the fourth amendment? That literally any cop can develop PC 99.9999% of the time because there’s so many traffic rules it’s impossible not to break one in a 5 minute period and thus invalidate some of your fourth amendment rights simply because you performed an activity (driving a car) that is a daily necessity of life in most of the country based on how our cities are designed?

[DpdG]

That's a lot to unravel in what you wrote. Forgive me if I paraphrase too much, but it sounds like to distill it down- "Traffic enforcement is by and large revenue generation and that causes bad PR for police. The is compounded by running drivers for warrants, leading to arrests." Working off that distillation (apologies again if I cut out too much nuance) the things to remember is in the US there are about 6 million accidents per year and between 35-45k deaths/year on average for 2010-2018 (last year available). Speed is one of, if not the biggest causes of serious traffic accidents. This is a huge societal toll and while I may not agree with the particular numeric limit the engineers or legislators set for a given road, I think we can agree that reducing the frequency and severity of those accidents is a valid governmental purpose.

If it's any consolation for you, in my state there is no direct monetary motivation for any agency to write citations. Fine revenue for all traffic citations go to the state's general fund and funds the Police Standards and Training Council, not to any particular LE agency or municipality.

Moving on to warrants- the primary way officers conduct any traffic enforcement, speed or any other infractions, is to stop the vehicle, then identify the driver (who is often not the registered vehilce owner so plate # is not sufficient). In order to confirm the driver's license is valid (and insurance if required in that state) one must conduct a search of motor vehicle records. It seems simple to me that there is a valid purpose for society for officers to ensure driver's are properly licensed and insured (if required), as drivers who are untrained, suspended due to negative driving behaviors, and the uninsured are a drain to society through accidents and the resultant injuries to others. These license searches are how warrants are located and arrests made. Assuming there are no warrants, the officer determines the appropriate corrective action (warning or ticket).

I'm going to purposely sidestep the drug investigation angle, because that is too big a ball of wax to unravel here, but it really is in society's best interest for warrants to be located on car stops as they are much less dangerous for everyone than warrant service at the wanted person's house. Going to houses is how SWAT raids occur and it seems pretty easy to agree those are inherently more hazardous than a car stop.


ETA- officers generally must have reasonable articulable suspicion to demand ID from someone. There are many other circumstance where they may ask for it (witnesses or such), but by and large they cannot demand ID from an uninvolved bystander, hence you were not ID'd when walking by a crime scene.

[Wise_A]

I see some cities becoming real shit holes without any police. The ones that do have police will have contracted private security companies to provide the services.

It's not even a matter of "policing" the way the general public thinks about it. Police are quite often the first to arrive on an emergency, and provide immediate assistance in addition to helping direct fire and EMT assets. In urban areas, a police car is almost certainly much closer than the nearest fire station or ambulance, and has the benefit of already being on the road. Police can be sent into situations that may be unsafe for firefighters or paramedics.

This "defund the police" rally cry is the single most ignorant thing I've ever heard. It will absolutely cost lives in the name of a political "look what we did". Defund and dismantle your police department to create "a transformative new model for public safety." What does that even mean?

[peterb]

It's not even a matter of "policing" the way the general public thinks about it. Police are quite often the first to arrive on an emergency, and provide immediate assistance in addition to helping direct fire and EMT assets. In urban areas, a police car is almost certainly much closer than the nearest fire station or ambulance, and has the benefit of already being on the road. Police can be sent into situations that may be unsafe for firefighters or paramedics.

This "defund the police" rally cry is the single most ignorant thing I've ever heard. It will absolutely cost lives in the name of a political "look what we did". Defund and dismantle your police department to create "a transformative new model for public safety." What does that even mean?

I can see arguing that if progress was made on the relevant social issues — drug use and abuse, homelessness, mental health care, etc. — one might be able to reduce the police portion of a municipal budget. Cutting the police force before those changes happen doesn’t make sense.

[Joe in PNG]

ulls out tinfoil hat:

Do remember that there's a number of people in the USA who think Marx is Just Dandy, and have studied the writings of him and others of a revolutionary ilk. To them, Increasing Misery is a good thing, as the discontent among the masses will finally bring about the promised Revolution of the Proletariat. To them, burning out the stores and police stations and other symbols of Bourgeois Oppression removes the blinders of Aspiration, letting the Toiling Masses see their true state.

The chaos and anarchy is the means to a Revolutionary End.

:/tinfoil:

[mtnbkr]

Defund and dismantle your police department to create "a transformative new model for public safety." What does that even mean?

It means we're on our own.

Chris

[BehindBlueI's]

For 20 years now I’ve been thinking “I bet if we got rid of speeding laws, people who hate the police less” So here’s my thoughts on the traffic thing.

I've lived in countries without traffic enforcement. Have you? What were the fatality rates?

"Not being able to run people for warrants" etc. Yes. The police would be much more popular if we just didn't arrest criminals.

[RJ]

It means we're on our own.

Chris

Yep.

And a lot of folks are going to find out how that works here in the near future. I for one welcome our new Rapid-Response Community Support Teams. /sarc

Seriously though, people who live in these urban / Progressive areas are fucked.

[Baldanders]

It is a tricky problem, and I don't know the exact numbers. My knee jerk reaction is to point out that we have not needed to use the draft to maintain staffing, the way we did for some of our major earlier conflicts, but I think that misses the point. I think @peterb hit on it a bit, in that basic requirements for participating in a meaningful way in many professional fields are increasing. Hell, when I enlisted, there was cuthroat competition to get certain job slots, and the biggest issue that recruiters had was getting qualified applicants who passed the ASVAB with high enough scores and who did not have some sort of other disqualifying medical or personal issue. The days of being given a choice of jail or Army seem to be well behind us. Not a lot of folks need or want unskilled entry level labor, and the folks who do, frequently pay under the table for it - its where a lot of the jobs in seasonal harvesting and outdoor work that I did growing up went away too when folks switched away from using high schoolers. I can't tell you about Police departments nation wide, but some of the departments where I grew up seemed to have the ability to be pretty choosy in who they hired - I don't know, are the applicants going down, or are standards going up?

The volunteering in person question is a tricky one. I get pretty frustrated with the stupid online "activism," but I have also seen quite a few folks showing up in person at various protests and events, sometimes to the point where they are willing to end up extra spicey at the end of the day. I have no numbers and I can't tell you what ratio are willing to put their money where their mouth is, but it is some.

I could just be constructing myself a narrative so I don't write my country off, but I guess I am a bit of an optimist as well that even if I really don't agree with folks, there is a certain percentage who do want to make a difference (and maybe also looking at the nostalgic look back with a more critical eye). I am more concerned that they are going to decide to make a difference by outlawing beef because cows fart methane and mandate that everyone join together with the global consensus because nation states are bad or something like that.

Since I have run a unit on "propaganda" that starts with "Starship Troopers", and had Navy and Guard recruiters in class as well, I have talked with young folks about their reason for wanting to join.

Long story short, at least 8/10 will say "it's for the money for school. How else would I get it?:" They understand what Heinlein is saying about duty, but they will admit that has nothing to do with why they are joining

Perhaps the American people are completely cynical about military service after the past 19 years? We have a whole generation that has known nothing but perpetual war that never really has any wins. Who can get excited about sacrifice with no chance of victory?

[GyroF-16]

(This might have been posted somewhere already... if so, I missed it before now.)

It's a long article, with a tonne of new information. You'll want to read it for yourself, if you haven't already.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...son-Texas.html

While his criminal history has no direct bearing on how he was treated while in custody (and the police involved may well not have known about it), it certainly does provide insight on his nature and character.
I think that article mentions how he had “turned his life around” at least 4 times. But never mentions all the narcotics in his system when he died (several of his previous convictions were for cocaine possession).