Why good cops can't turn in bad cops

[yeti]

garak -- I hear 'ya, man.it reminds me of overkill and astro trying to make things sink in to 'prone, over and over, to no avail.kudos for your effort, but things just don't sink in to some people.you might as well be talking to a brick. it is what it is.
have a good night.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
Garak,the support for law enforcement is at an all time low here in the U.S. A family member is a TACT officer in Chicago & hasn't done a traffic stop in years. He doesn't pull over "junkers" looking for some nonsense traffic violations.

We've been through this before. Not every police officer in every jurisdiction has the opportunity to deal with traffic violations, which certainly aren't nonsense. I don't expect guys on the major crimes squad to be handling impaired drivers anymore than I expect a collision analyst to handle crowd control. And in a busy city, often the only guys that get to handle traffic enforcement are dedicated traffic enforcement guys.

But, to hear others tell it, doesn't the notion of probable cause preclude any problems with unacceptable traffic stops? You've said you've felt unfairly targeted by police before. Did they have probable cause to stop you, or did they not? And, if they didn't, why haven't these police officers been fired? It seems I've been led to believe that would be the case. Additionally, not to let you off the hook, I thought officers in Chicago had no time for traffic stops?

yeti: If some of the naysayers had actually done some research, and understood how law enforcement actually worked on either side of the border, they'd understand what limitations are actually placed on police officers up here. There is a very good reason why field sobriety tests are very rarely used up here, whereas they've been commonplace in the States for decades. But, that's actually a legal debate, and not a bunch of hotbutton issues, so the interest clearly isn't there.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Garak


But, to hear others tell it, doesn't the notion of probable cause preclude any problems with unacceptable traffic stops? You've said you've felt unfairly targeted by police before. Did they have probable cause to stop you, or did they not? And, if they didn't, why haven't these police officers been fired? It seems I've been led to believe that would be the case.


The federal law has to be there to have a chance of weeding out bad cops. In some cases cops skirt the law for many years without consequence in others federal law and the FBI can bring these guys down. Public outrage normally drives it.

To simply say because some cops do as they please we might as well not have the protections anyway is defeatist and logically incorrect.

You seem more interested in "winning" our debates than getting at correct conclusions and getting at the root of problems.

 

[Garak]

Well, which is it then? You hung your hat on probable cause and made a pretty big stink out of it. I think its importance has been completely overblown here, and not by me. The probable cause requirement hasn't made the police in the U.S. beloved by all or eliminated any civil rights concerns at all. The lack of a probable cause requirement up here hasn't turned us into a police state or caused rioting about police stops, or a glut in the courts about search and seizure.

And, it's not about some cops doing as they please. You'd be surprised how similar law enforcement policies and practices are from country to country, despite a few little differences in legal frameworks here and there. As I've already stated, up here, the vast majority of traffic stops are for cause. Except in rare cases of really late nights and dead traffic, you're not going to be seeing people pulled over "just because." And, if when those circumstances happen, they can't go beyond checking license and registration unless something is in plain site or occupants volunteer something.

You've been exaggerating the value of probable cause, at least all on its own. Even without a requirement for probable cause, you already have other constitutional provisions that would prohibit policing (including traffic stops) based upon race, gender, and so forth. If there is a problem with profiling based upon these criteria, then the problem is bigger than probable cause. And, if there's no problem, then it's solved by more than just a probable cause requirement, since plenty of free countries do not have that explicit requirement. There's no probable cause requirement in Canada. You still can't pull over someone because of his race. In fact, if it isn't for an investigation, an observed offence, or to check license and registration (or, as you already indicated, a big checkstop where everyone is checked), the stop is illegal.

If you want to point out something that actually creates significant differences between the two countries, offer up the Second Amendment, at least. Or, if you want to bring up something that differentiates a free legal system from others, use the presumption of innocence or the right to know one's charges.

I'd be less interested in simply "winning" our debates if you stayed in one position from which I could learn something. I think I still have several legitimate questions about American law enforcement outstanding in this thread that still haven't been answered. For instance, I'm still waiting for some clarification on impaired driving enforcement in the States. Not all of my questions are rhetorical, after all.

 

[qwerty1234]

garak, from what you describe the laws a are vastly different. Your indirect quote on pulling over low income drivers is very disturbing. Your belief that it's okay to "time" how long a car sits in a bar parking lot is disturbing. I've spent long 4-6 hrs afternoons playing pool/dart in the bar and only had 3/4 cocktails.

 

[GiveMeAVowel]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
garak, from what you describe the laws a are vastly different. Your indirect quote on pulling over low income drivers is very disturbing. Your belief that it's okay to "time" how long a car sits in a bar parking lot is disturbing. I've spent long 4-6 hrs afternoons playing pool/dart in the bar and only had 3/4 cocktails.


I'm a US Citizen but I don't see a problem with police monitoring a bar or establishment where one of the primary activities is consumption of alcohol. Now I will say that after the subject exits the establishment after a couple of hours as a police officer I would wait for the motorist to exit the property parking lot and possibly tail them for a period of time WATCHING FOR EVIDENCE OF DUI BEFORE I WOULD PULL THE VEHICLE OVER FOR A STOP. I would think that they would likely do the same in Canada, correct? That would be
probable cause.

 

[qwerty1234]

vowel, but just because you are in a bar does not mean you are drinking or are over the legal limit. People have the right to enjoy alcohol in a reasonable manner. It's harassment and the alcohol/restaurant industry are very against this scenerio.

 

[GiveMeAVowel]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
vowel, but just because you are in a bar does not mean you are drinking or are over the legal limit. People have the right to enjoy alcohol in a reasonable manner. It's harassment and the alcohol/restaurant industry are very against this scenerio.



Sure you are able to enjoy that drink in a reasonable manner.
Again you did see that I specifically mentioned that BEFORE I would pull them over after they left the establishment parking lot I would follow them for a period of time to look for evidence of DUI on the road. If their driving skills look OK then there would be no probable cause to pull them over.

 

[qwerty1234]

vowel, but you are already targeting a select group of people which is profiling. Also, the police officer would be negligent if he let a staggering intoxicated person to start the car.

 

[GiveMeAVowel]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
vowel, but you are already targeting a select group of people which is profiling. Also, the police officer would be negligent if he let a staggering intoxicated person to start the car.


No, ANY person over 21 can enter that establishment and drink or not drink. Not profiling. I'm talking about someone who exits the establishment looking as if he is NOT under the influence of alcohol. Now if I saw this person staggering out of the place and attempt to start the car or leave the parking lot I WOULD stop that person right then and there. The appearance of being drunk would be DEFINITE probable cause to intervene.

Sorry man but you will LOSE this argument with law enforcement every time. The 4th Amendment allows for free passage and travel but remember that at the time that was put into law there was no such device as an automobile, only horse and carriage, and foot for most.

 

[dishdude]

Johnson, a newbie cop, gets put on the graveyard shift.
He takes his break and pulls into a gas station, goes in, gets a coffee and donut, and sits down in his cruiser.
As he is stuffing his face, he glances at the time.
It's 2:00 am.
The bar across the street is letting out, and he watches the patrons pile out into the parking lot.
"This should be an easy bust!" he thinks to himself, and continues eyeballing the crowd as they make their way to their vehicles.
One guy stands out in particular. The classic drunk guy... Stumbling and swaying through the crowd... Scream-talking at friends and being overly animated with his arms as he tries once more to convince some random girl to go home.
The crowd thins and cars begin to fill with people and drive off.
But Johnson has his sights on good ole Drunky McGee.
The bar fly McGee was hitting on, is having none of it, so they part ways, and Drunky stumbles his way to his car.
McGee makes to his car... It's locked.
The girl that got away drives off with friends, and other cars continue to exit the lot as well.
McGee fishes his keys out of his pocket and attempts to unlock the door... "fudge!" he drops the keys.
As he bends over to pick them up, he bangs his head on the door. "shoot!"
Johnson giggles at the sight and starts his cruiser.
Drunky fumbles with the keys and this impossible lock again.
More cars drive off.
FINALLY... The door is open and he pours himself into the drivers seat and starts the car.
He turns on the headlights... Nope that's the windshield wipers.
He turns on the head lights and begins to pull out.
HOOOOOONK!
He slams the brakes, just barely missing another car in the lot, making it's way to the road.
Johnson shakes his head and puts the car into drive.
Drunky begins his trek out of the parking lot once more, takes the turn too sharp and bounces down the curb.
Johnson lights him up and pulls him over.
He asks the man to step out of the car for a field sobriety test.
As he gets out, the last few remaining cars leave the bar, waving at McGee... He waves back drunkenly leaning on the cop's car.
As he looks back to the officer, he has a big smile on his face and begins to chuckle. He stands up straight and looks Johnson in the eyes.
"What's so funny?" asks Johnson.
McGee replies "I'm the DD!"
Johnson looks at him and then into the car and back at him. "Sure you are... Who are you designated driver for?"
McGee laughs even harder... "I couldn't drive everyone home, so I was the designated decoy!"

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
Your indirect quote on pulling over low income drivers is very disturbing. Your belief that it's okay to "time" how long a car sits in a bar parking lot is disturbing. I've spent long 4-6 hrs afternoons playing pool/dart in the bar and only had 3/4 cocktails.

Discriminating on the basis of income or alcohol consumption is perfectly legal in both our countries. In any case, you didn't answer my last questions yet. And what GiveMeAVowel states right below your post as to how an impaired driver is checked upon leaving the bar is exactly how it is done.

I will, however, call it profiling. Police profile. Too bad. You don't catch impaired drivers without profiling who is most likely to drive drunk. Like I said, you don't pick up impaired drivers by hanging out at the senior's bingo. You catch people leaving the bar, or driving around after last call.

One should not profile based upon religion, race, gender, and so forth. Profiling based upon someone hanging out at the bar is perfectly acceptable. And yes, some people hang out at the bar and play darts or pool, and some don't even touch a drop. But, bars aren't generally filled with people not drinking.

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
garak, from what you describe the laws a are vastly different.

I asked specific questions about this in a my reply to your last post. You didn't answer them. For your convenience:

Originally Posted By: Garak
But, to hear others tell it, doesn't the notion of probable cause preclude any problems with unacceptable traffic stops? You've said you've felt unfairly targeted by police before. Did they have probable cause to stop you, or did they not? And, if they didn't, why haven't these police officers been fired? It seems I've been led to believe that would be the case. Additionally, not to let you off the hook, I thought officers in Chicago had no time for traffic stops?

You keep telling me things are different between the two countries, somehow, yet whenever I ask you or turtlevette a specific question, I get ignored, someone answers a question I never asked, or I get a bunch of hand waving.

 

[qwerty1234]

"Police profile, too bad". That is your quote and that says it all. Garak, did you see what happened in Baltimore?? That is no longer acceptable here in the U.S. I thank God I don't live in Canada. I'd like to visit but, of course, I have 2 DUI's. You would probably label me as being a danger on the road. The fact is though, I don't care. Garak, you seem like an angry individual who like to argue. I bid you farewell, sir.

 

[GiveMeAVowel]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
I have 2 DUI's. You would probably label me as being a danger on the road.



I sure would!

The first one I can look past, the second I cannot, it shows you do NOT learn from your mistakes. Of course you do NOT care, especially about the well being of your fellow motorists and others that might be around you when you drive drunk. YOU COULD VERY WELL BE DANGEROUS ON THE ROAD!

 

[qwerty1234]

vowel, you are correct. I don't give a rats tail about anyone on the road. I have 2 other DUI's that were dismissed because there was NO PROBABLE CAUSE. I am one of those individuals who needs to stop drinking. And not stop drinking AND driving.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
vowel, you are correct. I don't give a rats tail about anyone on the road. I have 2 other DUI's that were dismissed because there was NO PROBABLE CAUSE. I am one of those individuals who needs to stop drinking. And not stop drinking AND driving.


So when are you going to do it?

 

[qwerty1234]

dish, you r are correct. I have to find a sponser & get back on the wagon. My point is, I'm the type who drove for years with no license. Garak, what do you do with people who drive over and over again with no license??

 

[qwerty1234]

And garak, if you look at the last post. I just got home from the bar.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
"Police profile, too bad". That is your quote and that says it all. Garak, did you see what happened in Baltimore??

You're not distinguishing between good profiling and bad profiling. I already told you I disapprove of racial profiling and religious profiling. In fact, it's illegal. However, deciding that a certain neighbourhood needs more patrols or that a junky vehicle should be checked is also profiling, and is perfectly valid. You want a police presence in a bad neighbourhood, but you don't want profiling? Which is it, since allocating resources where they are needed is, in fact, profiling?

Quit getting definitions from the media and social busybodies. You'd be a lot further ahead without believing that "profiling" automatically equates to "racial profiling." Profiling happens in racially homogeneous jurisdictions. You think there's no profiling in North Korea, where almost everyone is racially identical?

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
Garak, you seem like an angry individual who like to argue.

I like to debate, but I don't see any anger in my posts. I don't feel any anger when posting, either. I'm quite supportive of law enforcement, yet I don't preach here that every violator should be marched before a firing squad, either. So, where is this anger?

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
Garak, what do you do with people who drive over and over again with no license??

Measures were introduced a number of years back to deal with this. First off, our department of motor vehicles regularly transmits the names and addresses and description and plate numbers of registered vehicles of local disqualified drivers to the relevant police authority, so they can profile them as disqualified drivers. Then, a person with an expired license gets one sort of "freebie." If their license just expires, and they're caught driving, they get a ticket, but they make keep their vehicle. If they are disqualified, or have more than one charge of drive without a license, they will lose their vehicle for a minimum of 30 days, with the penalties increasing per offence.

Also, disqualified driving carries fines in the hundreds of dollars and also can (and will) result in custodial sentences. I once saw someone get locked up for six months for what was only her second drive while disqualified. That's what we do with people who drive over and over without a license.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
And garak, if you look at the last post. I just got home from the bar.


All class. Hopefully you wrap yourself around a pole and end up a quadriplegic instead of killing somebody else with your selfish behaviour.

Telling us what is wrong with our laws while you are a walking, drinking, driving example of what some of these laws are supposed to stop/prevent? Priceless. Maybe next you could go shoot some heroin, break into somebody's house and steal their jewelry and then start chirping about probable cause relative to B&E's