this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
463 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19185 readers
5806 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zkfcfbzr 159 points 9 months ago (2 children)

This seems like a strict improvement over the old situation, in a way that should be directly felt by lots and lots of people every single day.

I don't get the urge to take a needlessly cynical take on news like this. Yes, the system is still flawed, but yes, it's better than it was before. Take the win and move on to the next reform.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 9 months ago (8 children)

Absolutely this. If anything is going to change, we're going to hear about those changes like this. If the reaction is always "fuck you -ACAB!" the change won't work.

I actually strongly feel that ACAB, but I'd like to live in a society that could have fair and just policing, not one without police.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes. We need police in a society, as a force to prevent and stop crime. But what we have now across the US as police are shit. We need them to be rebuilt from the ground up as community policing with a focus on protecting people, not just enforcing violations.

ACAB makes sense with the system we have. But I kinda doubt we're going to get many tear down-rebuild efforts. Our best bet is to focus on stuff like this: institutional change in huge areas that change how police think and operate.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

I prefer PEB: Policing Enables Bastards.

Shorter and more accurate, given the US alone has 800k cops and there must be some podunk department of two officers who treats the ten citizens in town well and just has to pull cars out of ditches and calm down drunk spouses or something a few times a year.

Also if all good cops get fired so the rest are bad, there are some cops they’re working to fire as we speak and I want to respect them.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Any system of government will require some way to handle unlawful/harmful conduct, yeah. It's just a matter of making it not complete shit.

No idea if it would work in practice, but I once heard an idea where policing is a (mandatory?) duty for all citizens, but in regular rotation. Meaning, at any given time, some % of the population is now cops, and once your turn is up you're back to a regular person with no enforcement obligations or privileges. No idea if that would work in practice, but it would give people real consequences for being a shit cop. Nobody could just be a terrible cop in perpetuity.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Just make working in retail a mandatory service. That would fix society in a few years.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 88 points 9 months ago

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"Because you got straight C's in high school."

[–] FlyingSquid 48 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I don't see how this is transparency. Either way, the cop can just lie.

I mean this is nonsense:

California’s new law promotes these elements of procedural justice. During a traffic stop, for example, an officer who immediately shares the reason for the stop is being transparent. This allows the motorist to directly engage with the legitimate, legal reason for the stop rather than feel as if they are being interrogated for no reason or an ulterior motive. This more respectful form of communication makes police officers more accountable to those they wield power over.

If a cop pulls a black guy over for 'speeding,' it's still the cop's word against theirs. The only difference now is that the cop doesn't have to make the black guy guess which lie the cop is going to use.

[–] xantoxis 37 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

If a cop pulls a car over for speeding, and the motorist says "because I ran a stop sign", the cop can now give two tickets. Removing the fishing question still makes the driver's situation better.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] APassenger 25 points 9 months ago (4 children)

That and the dash cam.

If you're worried enough about police integrity, have a dash cam and have it on. I've seen videos (rare) where the cop lied about speed and the dash cam was used to knock it down.

Even cheap ones could be used to figure out speed based on landmarks and time stamps. GPS speed would be more conclusive, though.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

For that scenario all you'd have to do is pay a lawyer to file a motion of discovery, and the charges will almost certainly be dropped. You could probably talk a paralegal to do it for cheap, or your jurisdiction might allow you to file it yourself.

It costs more to gather the evidence than they'll get from the fine.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

LAPD & Sherrif deputies being held accountable...

I have a small doubt

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (4 children)

More accountable than Texas.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The only correct answer is along the lines of “I couldn’t fathom!” Don’t talk to cops. They aren’t your friends.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I've always just said "it's because you think I'm sexy and want my number." But in retrospect, your approach is probably better.

[–] TommySalami 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure "did we have a moment?" got me out of a minor ticket once.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

In the lowest stakes scenarios: be white & very polite!

Refusing to open my mouth would’ve cost me a ton of money over my lifetime.

Of course, talking is the only reason thousands of people are in jail today… know your rights & go from there.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

"No, but I sure am glad you did" with a quick wink and smile might get you their number lol.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Nightwingdragon 36 points 9 months ago (4 children)

So I have two lines of thought here.

One....Can we do the questions of "So where are you coming from anyway" and "So where are you heading" next? Neither one of those are the cop's business and have absolutely nothing to do with the traffic stop 99.9% of the time. The sole purpose of those questions is to get you to accidentally yourself into admitting to more that they can nail you with.

The other is good luck doing anything about it if the cops decide to ask you anyway. Sure, the cop may not legally be allowed to ask that, but what are you going to do about it if he does? Are you going to be willing to endure the cop dragging the traffic stop out as long as possible, just to annoy you? Are you willing to turn what may have been a warning into a citation because you pissed off the cop? Or worse, are you ready to endure him doing everything he can to nail you with everything but the kitchen sink, and make you go through the courts to fight it?

Making a law that makes it illegal for them to ask these questions does exactly nothing if the citizens are likely to receive further punishment if they refuse to cooperate when the cop asks anyway. The power imbalance is just way, way too lopsided in favor of the cop, and attempting to exercise your rights in these situations may end up causing more harm than good if the cop decides to go on a power trip.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago

You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.

Remember: cops get 72 hours to file charges or cut you loose, so they can just arrest and hold you without charges if they want to fuck your life up.

Good luck explaining to your boss that you missed the last 3 days of work because you were in jail, but it’s ok since they didn’t file charges (yet).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TengoDosVacas 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"Because you're avoiding a school shooting?"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xantoxis 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"Is it because of my ligma?"

[–] meco03211 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Nah. It probably smells like a dikfore.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I was out at a bar the other night with a bunch of fellow dads. I mentioned how I just got my son with the dikfore joke, figuring everyone knew what I was talking about.

One guy is like "I havent heard that one" and it was like time stood still. I was once again a middle school boy about to drop an embarrassment bomb onto someone, from which they would never recover. Everyone else seemed to sense it in the air because they all went silent too.

"You don't know the dikfore?"

We all know what comes next, and he realized what he had walked into the second it came out of his mouth. We all started cracking up, thinking it had been 30 years since the last time we were able to get a peer with that joke.

He still hasn't lived it down. He never will, as long as I'm still breathing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Was it because my vehicle exceeded the weight limit with all of this updog I'm transporting?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] yuriy 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cold_Brew_Enema 22 points 9 months ago (11 children)

Yeah this was outdated. They should be informing you why they pulled you over.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Now now folks, as long as the lovely police officers are still able to either plant, or pretend to find illegal drugs in the victim’s uh… criminals car so they can arrest them randomly, then everyone will be happy, yes?

[–] bhmnscmm 12 points 9 months ago

Just as long as the police can still steal any property and call it civil forfeiture.

[–] BigBenis 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

IANAL and it's best to know and understand the laws of the state that you're in. But in general you're under no obligation to answer any questions a cop has for you and you're not being rude or difficult by simply saying nothing at all. If a cop actually wants to help you they can do so by promptly giving you a citation and letting you go on about your day, not by trying to pry on your personal opinions or activities.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Even if the legislation falls short of the ambitions of its supporters, however, it does hold promise for furthering community trust in police by promoting what’s known as procedural justice. In simple terms, procedural justice is the perception of fairness in interactions with authority such as traffic stops.

So, not actual fairness?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I mean, they said right there that's in simple terms.

https://law.yale.edu/justice-collaboratory/procedural-justice

It needs to not only be fair, but appear fair.

If you're speeding, and you get pulled over, and the cop acts confrontational and then gives you a ticket, it doesn't appear fair.
If you're speeding, and you get pulled over, and the cop says they pulled you over for speeding, asks if you had a good reason to be going that speed, and then gives you a ticket when you don't, that appears fair, as well as being fair. The cop acted impartially, gave you a chance to explain yourself, and the outcome matched what you actually did.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NABDad 9 points 9 months ago

Of course, this also means smart-asses can't respond with, "What, don't you know?"

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

"I don't answer questions".

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

"I would prefer if you just told me."

load more comments
view more: next ›