Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gunfight at the O.K. CorralFollow

#252 Aug 02 2016 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Meanwhile, you're steadfastly avoiding discussing any sort of details.
Says the middle aged suburban white guy using broad statistics that are just barely relevant to the topic coupled and with a fake personal story to dismiss any actual discussion and real details.
But... aliens!
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#253 Aug 02 2016 at 10:54 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Meanwhile, you're steadfastly avoiding discussing any sort of details.
Says the middle aged suburban white guy using broad statistics that are just barely relevant to the topic coupled and with a fake personal story to dismiss any actual discussion and real details.
But... aliens!
We're building a wall to keep them out.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#254 Aug 02 2016 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Meanwhile, you're steadfastly avoiding discussing any sort of details.
Says the middle aged suburban white guy using broad statistics that are just barely relevant to the topic coupled and with a fake personal story to dismiss any actual discussion and real details.
But... aliens!
We're building a wall dome to keep them out.
Bucky Fuller wrote:
FTFY

____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#255 Aug 02 2016 at 11:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When we outlaw alien death rays, only outlaw aliens with have death rays...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#256 Aug 02 2016 at 11:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
...and they'll still shoot unarmed black people, and their kids.

Smiley: disappointed

Edited, Aug 2nd 2016 10:58am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#257 Aug 02 2016 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Did you argue with him when he pulled you over? Did you insist he was profiling you? Did you threaten to report himto his supervisor? Did you call him a "cracker cop" even just once? Cause, I think that might just have changed your experience.

Which one of those justifies the cop shooting you? Asking for a black friend.


None of them. However, those things do significantly increase the odds that the cop is going to search you or your car, and may result in an escalation of the encounter (especially if the driver responds with yet more belligerent behavior). Which might just be relevant to this discussion.

It's a feedback effect. Black people have a much greater perception that the cops are treating them differently because of their skin. So they tend to be more likely to react negatively when interacting with a cop, pretty much regardless of the situation. Remember professor Gates? The cops did nothing wrong at all. They responded to a call about a possible break in, and did the correct thing of asking the men breaking into the house for identification to prove that they lived there (which I'd assume the professor would expect them to do if it had been someone else breaking into his house). He went on a tirade, called them names, and otherwise escalated the situation. For no reason at all.

He's a freaking Harvard Professor. And that's how he reacted to a perfectly correct police encounter. Part of my point here is that while we can and should look at causes of the disparate stats, leaping to the conclusion that it's all because of racist cops is not only not a good way to go, it's almost certainly only going to make things worse. It will increase the perception, which will increase the rate of police encounters which escalate unnecessarily, which will increase the perception. And the whole thing grows.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#258 Aug 02 2016 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Did you argue with him when he pulled you over? Did you insist he was profiling you? Did you threaten to report himto his supervisor? Did you call him a "cracker cop" even just once? Cause, I think that might just have changed your experience.

Which one of those justifies the cop shooting you? Asking for a black friend.
None of them. However, those things do significantly increase the odds that the cop is going to search you or your car, and may result in an escalation of the encounter (especially if the driver responds with yet more belligerent behavior). Which might just be relevant to this discussion

Right. So THEN at what point are they justified in shooting you?

Also, allow me to laugh at the notion that it's apparently okay for police to decide to detain you and search your vehicle because you called them "cracker" or threatened to take his badge number. But it's your fault for escalating the situation.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2016 3:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#259 Aug 02 2016 at 3:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Right. So THEN at what point are they justified in shooting you?


Oh, I don't know... Perhaps at the point where you've assaulted the officer, attempted to grab his gun, ran away, the cop chased you, then you turned around and charged him? Maybe at that point?

Or maybe the point where you're asked to put your hands up, refuse, have a gun in your pocket, the cops attempt to disarm you, you struggle and reach for your gun? That point?

Obviously, there are some cases where the cop was clearly in the wrong. But when you mix those in with the cases where the person killed was clearly doing something violent and aggressive, and then mix in a social movement that seems to leap to the assumption of fault by the cops in every case, long before the facts are known, you add to an environment where the perception of the problem is far far greater than the reality of the problem.

Quote:
Also, allow me to laugh at the notion that it's apparently okay for police to decide to detain you and search your vehicle because you called them "cracker" or threatened to take his badge number. But it's your fault for escalating the situation.


The police officer is free to choose to search your vehicle and/or detain you if he decides the situation warrants it. Fair or not, we give them that curbside authority. The officer is always basing this decision on a subjective analysis of the person he's interacting with. And while you may think this is "unfair", the guy being belligerent to the cop is far more likely to be the subject of a search than the guy who's polite.

You're free to try to play roadside lawyer with the cop, but that generally ends poorly for you regardless of your skin color.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#260 Aug 02 2016 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
The police officer is free to choose to search your vehicle and/or detain you if he decides the situation warrants it. Fair or not, we give them that curbside authority. The officer is always basing this decision on a subjective analysis of the person he's interacting with. And while you may think this is "unfair", the guy being belligerent to the cop is far more likely to be the subject of a search than the guy who's polite.
Seems like this is the kind of thing you'd want to train people not to do? I mean, if that really is the case (CITE NAO PLZ!) Smiley: clown it points to the potential to miss something otherwise important if someone is less likely to searched just because they are "nice" or whatever.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#261 Aug 02 2016 at 4:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Meanwhile, you're steadfastly avoiding discussing any sort of details.
Says the middle aged suburban white guy using broad statistics that are just barely relevant to the topic coupled and with a fake personal story to dismiss any actual discussion and real details.


I'm not using broad statistics. I'm arguing *against* broad statistics. I'm examining the details behind those statistics and seeing that they don't match up with the broadly assumed reasons. But it's not like there isn't a ton of data on this sort of thing.

What's funny is that when you actually do some research on this topic, the overwhelming amount of data shows that it's not police bias that causes those disparate statistical outcomes, but a variety of factors, mostly involving environment and crime patterns to which the police are reacting. But on the "Blame the cops!" side exists just the broad resulting stats and a whole lot of emotion driven rhetoric.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#262 Aug 02 2016 at 4:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Interesting that there's still an implicit bias that wasn't drawn out in the testing. Wish they would have done this with a police dept. that would see more diversity in its day-to-day interactions though. It'd give it more weight. Spokane isn't exactly a melting pot, and with like 2% of the population reporting as African American I think it'd be hard to know if their assumptions are more media-influenced than job-influenced.

Probably should hit the citations and see if there's something there? Wonder if it's the same thing in New York, or Chicago, or some place similar where there'd be more interactions with minorities. I mean, I'm not questioning their results or anything, just wondering how much it can be universalized.

Or as it was stated in one of the two studies that cited this one:

Quote:
It is important to take the findings thus far into context and not rush to judgment until additional research can determine the extent to which the findings uncovered by James et al. ([2]) are applicable to other police officers and agencies. In other words, the question of generalizability remains. Although the research presented here is some of the best being done with respect to simulator experimental research, caution is warranted in terms of not overinterpreting the findings. To date, the authors have studied a total of just 116 police officers from a single agency in the upper Northwest (i.e., Spokane, WA). History tells us that jumping to conclusions based on such a limited inquiry is probably not wise. The results may be completely different if officers from larger urban cities, or smaller rural areas, are studied.


Edited, Aug 2nd 2016 3:58pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#263 Aug 02 2016 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Right. So THEN at what point are they justified in shooting you?
Oh, I don't know... Perhaps at the point where you've assaulted the officer, attempted to grab his gun, ran away, the cop chased you, then you turned around and charged him? Maybe at that point?

So nothing less than preventing immediate life-threatening harm, correct?
Quote:
The police officer is free to choose to search your vehicle and/or detain you if he decides the situation warrants it.

Searching someone because they insulted you is, pretty much by definition, NOT doing so because the situation warranted it. Nothing about someone calling you "cracker" makes them more or less likely to deserving of a search or detainment.
Quote:
And while you may think this is "unfair", the guy being belligerent to the cop is far more likely to be the subject of a search than the guy who's polite.

Why the quotes around unfair? Obviously it is plainly wrong for police to abuse their authority by detaining or searching people solely on the basis of liking them or not liking them. If they do so, the wrong was not on the guy who said some things that hurt the officer's feeling, the wrong is on the professional law enforcement agent who took an oath of honor and now decided to mess with a guy to teach him a lesson about saying "cracker".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#264 Aug 02 2016 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
I wonder which pundit gave Gbaji "Blame the Cops" to replace "Black Lives Matter" so as to make it appear more inflammatory and accusatory.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#265 Aug 02 2016 at 5:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The police officer is free to choose to search your vehicle and/or detain you if he decides the situation warrants it. Fair or not, we give them that curbside authority. The officer is always basing this decision on a subjective analysis of the person he's interacting with. And while you may think this is "unfair", the guy being belligerent to the cop is far more likely to be the subject of a search than the guy who's polite.
Seems like this is the kind of thing you'd want to train people not to do? I mean, if that really is the case (CITE NAO PLZ!) Smiley: clown it points to the potential to miss something otherwise important if someone is less likely to searched just because they are "nice" or whatever.


It's a matter of degrees though. Ultimately, you're dealing with a subjective decision by the officer. He's going to weigh all of the factors present. Everything else being identical, he's more likely to be suspicious of the person who's being belligerent towards him than the person who is being polite. And btw, the cops are pretty good at picking up on people faking politeness.

What's the alternative? Be more likely to search people who act nice to the cops? That seems... odd. And yeah, I suppose we could argue that the cops should just ignore the behavior and demeanor of the person he's interacting with, but while we can all stand around and stamp our feet at how "unfair" it is, the reality is that cops are actually quite good at interpreting the behavior of those they interact with. The unfortunate reality is that black people are disproportionately more likely to act in a manner consistent with someone who is "suspicious" than a white person is.

Ironically, the paper I linked a short while ago actually touches on this, although the paper researchers themselves didn't mention it. I would propose a fourth explanation for why the police in the study were more likely to associate black people with violence, but slower to react when presented with violence from black people in the simulation. Because they've become accustomed to a higher rate of "dangerous" seeming behavior from blacks than whites. As a result when a white person begins acting in a way that triggers the cops danger alarm, he's more likely to assume that person is actually about to do something like pull a gun on him. But he's more used to black people behaving that way, so he's going to wait longer to see if that's really a gun being pulled out.

It's just another possible explanation for the data. No way to know for sure how much this (or any other) factor plays in. The point though, is that there's a lot more to this than the ridiculously simplistic idea that cops are just racially biased towards blacks.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#266 Aug 02 2016 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yeah, I suppose we could argue that the cops should just ignore the behavior and demeanor of the person he's interacting with..

No, that's exactly the answer. These are trained professional law enforcement. They have an obligation to act like it.

Pointing this out isn't "stomping feet", it's the most basic part of their job to do their duty professionally and without bias. That you'd think it's just pouting is just fucking baffling.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#267 Aug 02 2016 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Why the quotes around unfair?
Spend 20 minutes going a forum search of gbaji and unfair/fair.

Anyone with access to an DSM V would rightly assume he's reading the work of a person suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#268 Aug 02 2016 at 5:35 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ultimately, you're dealing with a subjective decision by the officer. He's going to weigh all of the factors present. Everything else being identical, he's more likely to be suspicious of the person who's being belligerent towards him than the person who is being polite.
Totally relevant to a cop deciding that he will want a higher fine for the initial offense (they have that prerogative depending on the offence) or deciding that you vehicle may have a minor exterior problem he's go ahead and cite you for, but being a dick to a cop is not sufficient grounds for an interior search (defined by you opening your trunk or the officer entering your vehicle). Said officer would need what the law calls a "compelling reason" such as an odor of pot or some item (weapon/crack pipe/dufflebag full of heads) in plain view.



addendum; I've been spelling and mispronouncing "prerogative" for almost half a century.Smiley: bah
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#269 Aug 02 2016 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Right. So THEN at what point are they justified in shooting you?
Oh, I don't know... Perhaps at the point where you've assaulted the officer, attempted to grab his gun, ran away, the cop chased you, then you turned around and charged him? Maybe at that point?

So nothing less than preventing immediate life-threatening harm, correct?


Yes. I get that you're drawing this out to make an implication, but the reality is that in the overwhelming number of cases where a black person dies as a result of an interaction with a police officer, it was either an accidental death while attempting to deal with an unruly subject (like Garner for example), or the police fired at the suspect out of a belief that his life or the lives of others in the area was in imminent danger. Obviously, there are some examples where a gross mistake was made (the 12 year old kid shot so quickly after the cops arrived), but those are actually quite rare exceptions. Sadly, our media allows us to highlight the exceptions, and thus skew public perception.

Quote:
Quote:
The police officer is free to choose to search your vehicle and/or detain you if he decides the situation warrants it.

Searching someone because they insulted you is, pretty much by definition, NOT doing so because the situation warranted it. Nothing about someone calling you "cracker" makes them more or less likely to deserving of a search or detainment.


It doesn't? Please explain.


Quote:
Quote:
And while you may think this is "unfair", the guy being belligerent to the cop is far more likely to be the subject of a search than the guy who's polite.

Why the quotes around unfair?


Because it's not actually unfair at all. Thought that was obvious.

Quote:
Obviously it is plainly wrong for police to abuse their authority by detaining or searching people solely on the basis of liking them or not liking them.


It's not about liking or disliking. It's about the concept that someone who is acting outside the norm for interactions may just be acting outside the norm in other ways (and thus may have drugs or other contraband in the car). You're zeroing in on the whole "cracker" bit, but that's hardly the extent of this effect. More commonly, it's a matter of acting nervous (more nervous than normal, since everyone is a bit nervous when pulled over), defensive, furtively looking around, etc. Unfortunately, some of that behavior is going to be the result of the fact that many black people believe that the cops are treating them unfairly, and so they are more nervous than they would be otherwise, more likely to act defensively, get upset for merely being pulled over, etc.

All of those are behaviors that are warning signs to the cops that the person may be up to something, and will result in him taking a closer look at the person. It's not about a specific word they may use Joph.

Quote:
If they do so, the wrong was not on the guy who said some things that hurt the officer's feeling, the wrong is on the professional law enforcement agent who took an oath of honor and now decided to mess with a guy to teach him a lesson about saying "cracker".


You're trying to frame this as though the officer is reacting emotionally. While I'm sure that does happen from time to time, it's more about view of law enforcement. And yes, there's a social narrative to this as well, but as a general rule, people who don't respect law enforcement also tend to not respect the law. Which means the odds that they are violating the law is higher than otherwise. Remember that the officer's job isn't just to enforce traffic violations. Modern patrol officers are still expected to do the same sort of job as the old style beat cops (honestly not as well though, which I think I mentioned earlier). Part of their job is to look for anything suspicious and investigate it. So when they pull someone over (and, as I mentioned, they sometimes do this just because the person was there and they weren't on a call at the time), they are looking for any sign that something might be amiss. And the person's behavior is a huge part of that. Most people don't drive around with their bags of dope sitting on the front seat, or their illegal gun out on the dashboard. A police officer is going to make an assessment of the people in the car and go from there. And yeah, disrespectful language is one of the signs they may look for. And not just because it might upset the officer.

And again, at the end of the day, we can sit here and talk about professionalism and whatnot all day long, but do you go out of your way to insult the guy making your food? No? Why not? He's a professional right? How much slower does that cashier suddenly become if you start calling him names as well? Tell you what? Next time you're in court for a traffic ticket, just start cussing at the judge and calling him names and see what happens. Politeness makes the world work. I get the ideal that people should do their jobs professionally no matter how we act, but I don't think that's an excuse to engage in poor behavior in the first place. It costs you nothing to be polite to someone. Why go out of your way to antagonize people, and then get upset if/when they react? That goes back to my earlier point about much of this being about creating conflict for the sake of creating a conflict.

Which just seems silly to me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#270 Aug 02 2016 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So nothing less than preventing immediate life-threatening harm, correct?
Yes.

Thank you. You didn't need to try to spin anything else as this is the only correct answer, period.
Quote:
It doesn't? Please explain.

Please explain how saying "cracker" creates an increase in probability that you will have items on your person or in your car. Do they appear by magic? Is "cracker" a magical word that causes items to materialize? I mean, obviously it doesn't cause crackers to materialize because those are legal but are you suggesting that it makes drugs or guns or panda pelts appear?

Because, if not, I thought the explanation was self-evident.
Quote:
It's not about liking or disliking. It's about the concept that someone who is acting outside the norm for interactions may just be acting outside the norm in other ways (and thus may have drugs or other contraband in the car). You're zeroing in on the whole "cracker" bit, but that's hardly the extent of this effect

Did you argue with him when he pulled you over? Did you insist he was profiling you? Did you threaten to report him to his supervisor? Did you call him a "cracker cop" even just once? Cause, I think that might just have changed your experience.

Explain exactly how any other those things increases the risks of contraband in your car. Because common sense would tell me that if I had contraband in my car and was pulled over, I'd be super-duper polite and not make waves. But you're convinced that those are the marks for guns made out of heroin pandas. I need you to explain clearly exactly why this is.

Quote:
You're trying to frame this as though the officer is reacting emotionally.

"Frame it"? No, if the officer is making calls based on me saying "cracker" or anything else you listed it is 100% absolutely an emotional reaction because there is no rational basis by which to jump from "Said cracker, must have drugs!"

Quote:
And again, at the end of the day, we can sit here and talk about professionalism and whatnot all day long, but do you go out of your way to insult the guy making your food? No? Why not? He's a professional right?

So you figure the tax-paid civil servant who swore an oath to protect society and who carries a gun is somehow equivalent to the fry cook at Super Burgers. That's interesting. Retarded, but interesting.

Quote:
I get the ideal that people should do their jobs professionally no matter how we act, but I don't think that's an excuse to engage in poor behavior in the first place.

Wow, did you miss the point! There is no excuse to engage in unprofessional behavior regardless of how the person you pulled over is acting. None. Zero. That you're trying to defend it is, again, baffling.

Well, sadly, not really.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#271 Aug 02 2016 at 8:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ultimately, you're dealing with a subjective decision by the officer. He's going to weigh all of the factors present. Everything else being identical, he's more likely to be suspicious of the person who's being belligerent towards him than the person who is being polite.
Totally relevant to a cop deciding that he will want a higher fine for the initial offense (they have that prerogative depending on the offence) or deciding that you vehicle may have a minor exterior problem he's go ahead and cite you for, but being a dick to a cop is not sufficient grounds for an interior search (defined by you opening your trunk or the officer entering your vehicle). Said officer would need what the law calls a "compelling reason" such as an odor of pot or some item (weapon/crack pipe/dufflebag full of heads) in plain view.


Being a dick to the cop doesn't give him legal grounds to do anything. However, the cop has legal grounds to do a whole lot of things you probably don't want to have to deal with at any given moment. Being polite to the officer increases the odds that he wont exercise any of those options. Being impolite to him increases the odds that he will. I'll say the same thing I said to Joph. Being searched was just an example. There are many others. The officer can decide that you may be intoxicated (belligerence is a sign of intoxication, right?). He can then arrest you, have you spend the night in a drunk tank, and then have to pay to get your car out of impound the next day. That's a bit worse than having your car searched, isn't it?

Oh wait, you say. That's the cop abusing his authority! Well... good luck proving that. I guess I still don't get the idea of intentionally acting like a prick to a cop because you believe that they shouldn't treat you any differently because of it. I mean, I suppose we could speculate about some perfect world with perfect police officers, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the police have to deal with a ton of stuff that neither you nor I would ever want to deal with. The crazy guy who hasn't showered in a year and is running around flicking his poo at everyone? They get to grab him and take him away. The gang banger hopped up on pcp? They get to deal with that guy. The angry bikers looking for a reason to get into a fight? Get to deal with them too. And when they deal with these people, they can't be nice and gentle. I get that this may be shocking to see on TV, but that's the reality of the job. Trying to be gentle means you get hurt. And you have to realize that for the drunk guy resisting arrest, this is the one day in his life when he's going to get slammed to the pavement and may get inured in the process. For the cop? It's another Saturday night, and it'll be him getting slammed repeatedly every night if he doesn't act first and act forcefully.

So yeah. You should do everything you can to put yourself in the "normal" category as far as the cops are concerned, and not the "guy I may have to get physical with" category. Not because the cop personally cares about you or your own issues with cops, but because he's doing a job and one of his top priorities is not getting injured or killed while doing that job.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#272 Aug 02 2016 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Being a dick to the cop doesn't give him legal grounds to do anything. However, the cop has legal grounds to do a whole lot of things you probably don't want to have to deal with at any given moment. Being polite to the officer increases the odds that he wont exercise any of those options. Being impolite to him increases the odds that he will.

Yeah, that's a problem. I get that you don't care that it's a problem but, well, that's a separate problem.
Quote:
The gang banger hopped up on pcp? They get to deal with that guy. The angry bikers looking for a reason to get into a fight? Get to deal with them too. And when they deal with these people, they can't be nice and gentle. I get that this may be shocking to see on TV, but that's the reality of the job. Trying to be gentle means you get hurt.

This has nothing at all to do with detaining/searching someone (or otherwise "do a whole lot of things you probably don't want to have to deal with") because he called you names or threatened to report you.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2016 9:36pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#273 Aug 02 2016 at 8:48 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ultimately, you're dealing with a subjective decision by the officer. He's going to weigh all of the factors present. Everything else being identical, he's more likely to be suspicious of the person who's being belligerent towards him than the person who is being polite.
Totally relevant to a cop deciding that he will want a higher fine for the initial offense (they have that prerogative depending on the offence) or deciding that you vehicle may have a minor exterior problem he's go ahead and cite you for, but being a dick to a cop is not sufficient grounds for an interior search (defined by you opening your trunk or the officer entering your vehicle). Said officer would need what the law calls a "compelling reason" such as an odor of pot or some item (weapon/crack pipe/dufflebag full of heads) in plain view.


Being a dick to the cop doesn't give him legal grounds to do anything. However, the cop has legal grounds to do a whole lot of things you probably don't want to have to deal with at any given moment. Being polite to the officer increases the odds that he wont exercise any of those options. Being impolite to him increases the odds that he will. I'll say the same thing I said to Joph. Being searched was just an example. There are many others. The officer can decide that you may be intoxicated (belligerence is a sign of intoxication, right?). He can then arrest you, have you spend the night in a drunk tank, and then have to pay to get your car out of impound the next day. That's a bit worse than having your car searched, isn't it?

Oh wait, you say. That's the cop abusing his authority! Well... good luck proving that. I guess I still don't get the idea of intentionally acting like a prick to a cop because you believe that they shouldn't treat you any differently because of it. I mean, I suppose we could speculate about some perfect world with perfect police officers, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the police have to deal with a ton of stuff that neither you nor I would ever want to deal with. The crazy guy who hasn't showered in a year and is running around flicking his poo at everyone? They get to grab him and take him away. The gang banger hopped up on pcp? They get to deal with that guy. The angry bikers looking for a reason to get into a fight? Get to deal with them too. And when they deal with these people, they can't be nice and gentle. I get that this may be shocking to see on TV, but that's the reality of the job. Trying to be gentle means you get hurt. And you have to realize that for the drunk guy resisting arrest, this is the one day in his life when he's going to get slammed to the pavement and may get inured in the process. For the cop? It's another Saturday night, and it'll be him getting slammed repeatedly every night if he doesn't act first and act forcefully.

So yeah. You should do everything you can to put yourself in the "normal" category as far as the cops are concerned, and not the "guy I may have to get physical with" category. Not because the cop personally cares about you or your own issues with cops, but because he's doing a job and one of his top priorities is not getting injured or killed while doing that job.
Did you smoke salvia all day?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#274 Aug 02 2016 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So nothing less than preventing immediate life-threatening harm, correct?
Yes.

Thank you. You didn't need to try to spin anything else as this is the only correct answer, period.


No spin. Just pointing out how often this is the factual case, but the initial media fueled assumptions pretty consistently manage to get it wrong. And much of BLM's activity is based on that false belief.

Quote:
Quote:
It doesn't? Please explain.

Please explain how saying "cracker" creates an increase in probability that you will have items on your person or in your car.


That by itself? No. A combination of statements and actions which indicate to the officer that you're overly not happy you were pulled over? Yeah. Because sometimes people are upset about being pulled over because they honestly don't think they did anything wrong. But those people don't usually rise to the level of verbal abuse I'm talking about. People who do that usually are trying to put the cop on the defensive and/or distract from something else going on.

Quote:
Do they appear by magic? Is "cracker" a magical word that causes items to materialize? I mean, obviously it doesn't cause crackers to materialize because those are legal but are you suggesting that it makes drugs or guns or panda pelts appear?


Go ask a cop how high the correlation is between someone starting right off verbally assaulting the cop for pulling them over, and the likelihood that they have some contraband in their car is. The foolish notion is that by berating the cop right off the bat the cop will pull back and be more hesitant to look too closely. That's wrong, of course, but you'd be surprised how often people try this.

Quote:
Did you argue with him when he pulled you over? Did you insist he was profiling you? Did you threaten to report him to his supervisor? Did you call him a "cracker cop" even just once? Cause, I think that might just have changed your experience.


Yeah. That's more than just calling him "cracker", right? Again, I think you simply don't realize how frequently people who really really don't want their cars to be searched start off the police stop by berating the cop, insisting before he's even gotten to the window that they did nothing wrong, the cop had no reason to stop him, it's racial profiling, etc. That's what I was talking about. Now is it possible some really stupid person might do that kind of thing too? Sure. But that would be... stupid.

Quote:
Explain exactly how any other those things increases the risks of contraband in your car.


Sigh. Because it's behavior that people who are trying to hide something from the cop do. You're looking at it wrong. Saying or doing those things doesn't put contraband in your car. People who have contraband in their cars tend to say or do those things. They're hoping (wrongly) that they'll make the cop concerned about a possible complaint on their record for pulling someone over "for no reason at all", and will thus maybe just apologize for pulling them over, maybe give a warning, and then be on their way or something. Of course, the cops know this. Which is why, if you foolishly engage in the same kind of behavior, it's going to make the cop more suspicious, take more time looking around the car, etc.


Quote:
Because common sense would tell me that if I had contraband in my car and was pulled over, I'd be super-duper polite and not make waves.


You'd think so. But you'd be wrong. Do you actually know anyone in law enforcement? You'd be amazed at the behavior patterns that they are well aware of, that people do engage in, but that make zero sense from an objective rational person's point of view. Heck. Have you watched an episode or three of cops, or worlds wildest chases, or whatever those shows are called? Obviously, those are the most dramatic scenes they can catch on video, but from the stories I've heard from friends of mine in law enforcement that sort of thing isn't that rare. And the patterns of behavior are quite consistent. People who berate the cop for pulling them over are almost 100% either drunk or high, or they have something in the car they don't want the cop to find. So if the cop doesn't think the person is intoxicated, but the person started out berating them, they immediately start thinking about how to obtain permission to search the car. And they're pretty sneaky about doing that as well.

Again, the thing that most people don't get is that while you may occasionally interact with a police officer on a traffic stop, the officer interacts at such stops every single day, all day long. He knows the script to every scenario. He's heard every approach to a stop that exists. And he can usually predict from the first couple sentences out of your mouth which script this particular stop is going to follow. When you hear about cops "having a feeling that something was up", this is why. I just tossed out a few funny bits as examples, don't take them as gospel or anything. The point is that the cops do know what "tells" people send out. And they're very very good at it.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2016 7:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#275 Aug 02 2016 at 9:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Heh... ok. I see we're in the "I know a million cops and they all say..." portion of the program now so I'll just leave it with that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#276 Aug 02 2016 at 9:17 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because sometimes people are upset about being pulled over because they honestly don't think they did anything wrong. But those people don't usually rise to the level of verbal abuse I'm talking about. People who do that usually are trying to put the cop on the defensive and/or distract from something else going on.
This is true because...you say so?

Lemee try this:

Rich GOP voters hate poor people.


There; it's written online, therefore it must be true.


gbaji wrote:
don't take them as gospel or anything.
We won't, because you are grossly wrong. Unless that is how cops behave in your insulated little racist neighborhood.


Edited, Aug 2nd 2016 9:20pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 383 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (383)