What happens if citizen's no longer trust the police? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : What happens if citizen's no longer trust the police?


Roering
08-17-2011, 00:24
"Yeah Dad, but they are also a couple of guys with guns."

A statement my son made after he and his friend were pulled over in a quiet neighborhood experiencing a black out at 2 in the morning for a faulty brake light.

Long story short is that the car was searched as were they (TSA style with a full groping of his junk). When he got home he told me about the whole ordeal and when I asked him why he didn't just politely object to the search because they know what his rights are this was his response.

Essentially he was intimidated by the officers and quiet frankly too scared to say anything when asked. This was his first experience with policemen aside from hearing them speak at his school.

He went on to tell me that non compliance could be construed as giving them attitude and he didn't want to escalate an already bad situation. I had to think about it for awhile and I'm not sure I can disagree with him. He's a good kid but the policemen who pulled him over don't know that.

So my question is really geared toward any officers, especially those who have kids. How can a 19 y/o exercise his rights in that situation without coming off as uncooperative or giving off the appearance of attitude?

JohnnyReb
08-17-2011, 00:34
"Yeah Dad, but they are also a couple of guys with guns."

A statement my son made after he and his friend were pulled over in a quiet neighborhood experiencing a black out at 2 in the morning for a faulty brake light.

Long story short is that the car was searched as were they (TSA style with a full groping of his junk). When he got home he told me about the whole ordeal and when I asked him why he didn't just politely object to the search because they know what his rights are this was his response.

Essentially he was intimidated by the officers and quiet frankly too scared to say anything when asked. This was his first experience with policemen aside from hearing them speak at his school.

He went on to tell me that non compliance could be construed as giving them attitude and he didn't want to escalate an already bad situation. I had to think about it for awhile and I'm not sure I can disagree with him. He's a good kid but the policemen who pulled him over don't know that.

So my question is really geared toward any officers, especially those who have kids. How can a 19 y/o exercise his rights in that situation without coming off as uncooperative or giving off the appearance of attitude?

It totally depends on why the officers felt like they needed to pat him down. Something had to lead to the pat down from the brake light being out, do you have any idea what it is?

As far as declining to a consensual search, I doubt that would really escalate anything, it happens all the time.

Roering
08-17-2011, 00:39
It totally depends on why the officers felt like they needed to pat him down. Something had to lead to the pat down from the brake light being out, do you have any idea what it is?

As far as declining to a consensual search, I doubt that would really escalate anything, it happens all the time.

Well, it was 2 in the morning and there was a black out in the neighborhood. My guess is that they may have thought they had a couple of potential thieves?

JohnnyReb
08-17-2011, 00:48
Well, it was 2 in the morning and there was a black out in the neighborhood. My guess is that they may have thought they had a couple of potential thieves?

That's definitely plausible. Without actually being there, its hard to say.:dunno:

Roering
08-17-2011, 00:54
That's definitely plausible. Without actually being there, its hard to say.:dunno:

If you are suspected of stealing in the neighborhood and you answer "no" to the question of having your car searched, could an arrest be next?

Cochese
08-17-2011, 01:25
If you are suspected of stealing in the neighborhood and you answer "no" to the question of having your car searched, could an arrest be next?

Only if warranted. An arrest requires facts which lead a reasonable person to believe a crime is happening. If those facts were present, then maybe.

Or,.the investigation could continue during the contact to see what develops. Hard to say sir.

efman
08-17-2011, 02:15
so why were the cops "bad" the had pc for the stop, they asked your son to search the car and your son said yes. they probably asked him if they could pat him down and he said yes to that too! what was so wrong? not being a ****** I just don't understand. :dunno:

Patchman
08-17-2011, 04:56
Well, it was 2 in the morning and there was a black out in the neighborhood. My guess is that they may have thought they had a couple of potential thieves?

It's unfortunate your son had an experience with LE that may have soured him. But if you think about it, LE never stops someone/makes contact to give good news. And often, LE may give the reason why the person was stopped but the person refuses to believe it's the real reason, leading to feelings of confusion and frustration.

Hopefully your son will eventually understand that under the above circumstances (black out, 2AM), the cop was looking out for the best interest of the entire community. Nothing personal. Strictly business.

Bruce M
08-17-2011, 05:24
Sometimes when the question is asked if one agrees to the search, the officer has already developed his probable cause for the search and the request is more of a formality to see what type of response is given as opposed to an actual request.

Also two teenagers in a quiet neighborhood at 2am seems at least a bit suspicious until some reasonable reason is given for their presence; add a blackout and that perhaps raises the suspicion even a bit more.

Sam Spade
08-17-2011, 05:32
With respect, even as I attempt to give it straight:

If someone is in such a state that he doesn't know or is afraid to exercise his rights, he has a problem, not me. This society is predicated on the idea that free men are knowledgable and willing participants in its governing. That includes their ability to judge facts and make decisions. That includes their willingness to act as a brake on government excess. If someone is old enough to drive, old enough to vote, serve on a jury and enlist in our Armed Forces, then he ought to be old enough to knowingly and intelligently exercise his rights.

I'm sorry that your son isn't there. I do not know if this is a failure of home or of schooling or something else. I'm pretty sure, *almost* certain that it wasn't a failure of the two guys that your community commissioned to patrol the streets while you're asleep, responding to emergencies and hunting criminals in between those responses.

How to exercise your rights is a subsidiary question here. The root issue is the lack of will to do so, not the best statment to use. If you dont work on that with your boy, the rest of the scenario doesnt matter.

Again, I'm not trying to cut on you, I don't know where you live or what crime and cops are like there. I really want an educated citizenry of thinkers and participants in society. I hope for guys who do the right thing and the best thing, not guys who roll over because I've got a gun.

Work on his knowing his place, and the rest follows.

Agent6-3/8
08-17-2011, 08:03
"Yeah Dad, but they are also a couple of guys with guns."

A statement my son made after he and his friend were pulled over in a quiet neighborhood experiencing a black out at 2 in the morning for a faulty brake light.

Long story short is that the car was searched as were they (TSA style with a full groping of his junk). When he got home he told me about the whole ordeal and when I asked him why he didn't just politely object to the search because they know what his rights are this was his response.

Essentially he was intimidated by the officers and quiet frankly too scared to say anything when asked. This was his first experience with policemen aside from hearing them speak at his school.

He went on to tell me that non compliance could be construed as giving them attitude and he didn't want to escalate an already bad situation. I had to think about it for awhile and I'm not sure I can disagree with him. He's a good kid but the policemen who pulled him over don't know that.

So my question is really geared toward any officers, especially those who have kids. How can a 19 y/o exercise his rights in that situation without coming off as uncooperative or giving off the appearance of attitude?



I'm not completely clear on why the situation was "bad". Stopping cars with defective equipment is SOP and good police work. Judging by the time of night and circumstances I suspect the officers thought that they might have been dealing with a couple of burglars. As far as the search of your son's person goes, it was just as uncomfortable for the officer as it was for your son. Nobody like touching another guy's junk, but you wouldn't believe how many people hide stuff in their crotch. If its a bag of dope, them someone might get away with something. If its a gun, you or a fellow officer could end up dead. You've got to "get up in there" as unpleasant as it may be.

To answer your question, the best you can do is politely tell the officer that no, he may not search your vehicle. The fact of the matter is, regardless of how he may act, you've got to have consent of PC to search a vehicle.

DaBigBR
08-17-2011, 09:29
As usual, I'm with Sam.

I cannot tell you, especially working in a college town, the number of times that I have had a 18-19-20-etc year old deny consent to search. A good deal of the time, they do it politely and without "escalating" anything. Generally speaking, the manner in which consent is denied, whether polite or not, has no bearing on the next step: either I have a legal reason to search without consent or I don't.

An officer that becomes overbearing or coercive in the face of denied consent knows neither the law nor his options.

Hack
08-17-2011, 09:50
Not much to add that isn't already correct. Suffice it to say about myself as a nineteen year old man. I was already out of the home at that age, working and attempting to scratch together a living, a responsible member of a national guard unit. Basically a responsible citizen. By now, it is time they know what is right and wrong and learn to keep up with law that protects their rights, as well as what basic commonly known laws that they need to abide by.

Chowser
08-17-2011, 10:01
Haha. We just had this discussion at work. Nothing good happens after midnight. And if they were out after 2 during a blackout I'd stop them to find out what's going on. Did they just leave work or a bar or a restaurant (during a blackout?) During the big n.e. blackout back in, was it 2003? We all got called in and curfew was in effect. If you were out during the blackout after midnight and not an emergency worker, you got stopped and questioned

Honestly to answer your question, I'd probably take a No to consent to think something is up during a blackout and try a little harder to see what someone is hiding. If it's just a stop and nothing else is going on, I'd say ok, goodbye. You can judge when someone is being shifty.

Roering
08-17-2011, 10:48
so why were the cops "bad" the had pc for the stop, they asked your son to search the car and your son said yes. they probably asked him if they could pat him down and he said yes to that too! what was so wrong? not being a ****** I just don't understand. :dunno:

Nothing "bad" about the policemen at all. They stopped two kids at 2 in the morning. Had a reason to check them out. And had every right to search since he gave consent. Not the issue here.

It's in Newport Beach CA. Very quiet area away from the coast. Very little crime here. It's a common joke that the police here are either very bored, very effective, or both. I would suspect both.

volsbear
08-17-2011, 11:20
No way to tell what really happened since nobody here was in the car. It's regrettable that your son has this opinion of the police, though. If you didn't teach him this view of the police, it's very possible that his choice of friends are. To that issue, it's possible his friend did/said something to prompt the officer to request consent to search as well.

Panzergrenadier1979
08-17-2011, 11:39
Nothing "bad" about the policemen at all. They stopped two kids at 2 in the morning. Had a reason to check them out. And had every right to search since he gave consent. Not the issue here.

The title of your thread ("What happens if citizen's no longer trust the police?") leads me to believe that the situation that you described is "bad" and that the officers involved would subsequently be "bad" as well.

If your thread title was "What happens if citizen's no longer trust left-handed rodeo clowns?" then I would assume that your first post would be less then flattering towards left-handed rodeo clowns. :dunno:

Regarding the crotch-area-search: Nobody likes to be searched there, male, female, felon, or innocent tax-payer. The officer doesn't like it either. Bad guys know this and thus stash their contraband and weapons where they are least likely to be vigorously searched. Officer/ public safety aside, it's also a CYA issue. Early this year an officer in a medium sized PA department failed to search a prisoner's crotch. After he was booked the prisoner was able to removed the HANDGUN he'd hidden next to his balls and hide it inside the facility. The gun was later found by corrections staff and a multi-day lock-down ensued. That officer is no longer employed because of this event.

Roering
08-17-2011, 11:44
No way to tell what really happened since nobody here was in the car. It's regrettable that your son has this opinion of the police, though. If you didn't teach him this view of the police, it's very possible that his choice of friends are. To that issue, it's possible his friend did/said something to prompt the officer to request consent to search as well.

A week before this happened we had discussed the homeless man in Fullerton who was beaten to death by the police. A couple of salient points we had taken from it was that policemen have to deal with society at it's worst, and sometimes police get caught up in the moment like any other human being could. I'm sure this was fresh in his mind. Not giving consent to a search (to him at the time) could be construed to the officers as being combative.

Roering
08-17-2011, 11:47
The title of your thread ("What happens if citizen's no longer trust the police?") leads me to believe that the situation that you described is "bad" and that the officers involved would subsequently be "bad" as well.

If your thread title was "What happens if citizen's no longer trust left-handed rodeo clowns?" then I would assume that your first post would be less then flattering towards left-handed rodeo clowns. :dunno:

Regarding the crotch-area-search: Nobody likes to be searched there, male, female, felon, or innocent tax-payer. The officer doesn't like it either. Bad guys know this and thus stash their contraband and weapons where they are least likely to be vigorously searched. Officer/ public safety aside, it's also a CYA issue. Early this year an officer in a medium sized PA department failed to search a prisoner's crotch. After he was booked the prisoner was able to removed the HANDGUN he'd hidden next to his balls and hide it inside the facility. The gun was later found by corrections staff and a multi-day lock-down ensued. That officer is no longer employed because of this event.

Just because you don't trust a total stranger, it doesn't make them bad.

RussP
08-17-2011, 11:59
Nothing "bad" about the policemen at all. They stopped two kids at 2 in the morning.To you, he's your kid. At 02:00 in a traffic stop he's an unknown adult male. Had a reason to check them out. And had every right to search since he gave consent. Not the issue here.

It's in Newport Beach CA. Very quiet area away from the coast. Very little crime here. It's a common joke that the police here are either very bored, very effective, or both. I would suspect both.I'm curious, you haven't said why your son and his friend were in that area. Do you mind saying?

Panzergrenadier1979
08-17-2011, 12:41
Just because you don't trust a total stranger, it doesn't make them bad.

True.

Likewise: At 2am, during a blackout, the officers didn't trust your son. This doesn't make your son bad, but the officers did what they felt they had to do under the circumstances presented to them at the time.

The fact of the matter is that we only have your son's account of what happened. Kids lie to the police and they lie to their parents about encounters they have with the police. It's fun to have an angry parent attempt to explain to you (the arresting officer) an event that took place during an incident that they were not present for. :upeyes:

No kid is going to tell Mommy and Daddy "Hey! This awesome cop who teaches Sunday school with his wife at church, has 4 kids with another on the way, mows his elderly neighbor's lawn, and anonymously donates money to various charities pulled-me over on a legitimate traffic stop, patted me down for his safety so he can home to his kids and then let me go with a warning! Yay for cops!"

I mean absolutely no offense to you or your son at all: My first instinct is to not to be 100% believing of your son's account of what happened. I'd prefer to hear the other side's story before talking about whether or not the law enforcement community as a whole needs to be dis-trusted.

Roering
08-17-2011, 12:56
To you, he's your kid. At 02:00 in a traffic stop he's an unknown adult male. I'm curious, you haven't said why your son and his friend were in that area. Do you mind saying?

He and his buddy were at a friends house playing an online game (yeah I know, total waste of time). Since the neighborhood blacked out, gaming was obviously stopped so instead of staying the night they decided to head for home.

Roering
08-17-2011, 13:00
True.

Likewise: At 2am, during a blackout, the officers didn't trust your son. This doesn't make your son bad, but the officers did what they felt they had to do under the circumstances presented to them at the time.

The fact of the matter is that we only have your son's account of what happened. Kids lie to the police and they lie to their parents about encounters they have with the police. It's fun to have an angry parent attempt to explain to you (the arresting officer) an event that took place during an incident that they were not present for. :upeyes:

No kid is going to tell Mommy and Daddy "Hey! This awesome cop who teaches Sunday school with his wife at church, has 4 kids with another on the way, mows his elderly neighbor's lawn, and anonymously donates money to various charities pulled-me over on a legitimate traffic stop, patted me down for his safety so he can home to his kids and then let me go with a warning! Yay for cops!"

I mean absolutely no offense to you or your son at all: My first instinct is to not to be 100% believing of your son's account of what happened. I'd prefer to hear the other side's story before talking about whether or not the law enforcement community as a whole needs to be dis-trusted.

Think about it for a moment. If you were 19 and out causing trouble or doing something you darn well know you aught not to be doing, get pulled over and searched, etc. etc. but let go with a warning, would you really tell your parents about it???

I wouldn't because I wouldn't want to explain why I got pulled over in the first place.

And I'm not saying that they "need to be dis-trusted".

Nor am I an angry parent. I think that it certainly posed for an uncomfortable situation for him to be in and I honestly could not tell him that next time he should deny the officers request for reasons mentioned above.

I was (and am) a little perplexed on how one could handle that situation without getting arrested or groped.

DaBigBR
08-17-2011, 13:19
Not giving consent to a search (to him at the time) could be construed to the officers as being combative.

I completely and totally DISAGREE with this assessment. Refusing consent to search is NOT "combative" by any definition of the term that is applicable to law enforcement officers on patrol. May it be construed as "uncooperative" or "suspicious", perhaps...but let's not get so far ahead of ourselves as to suggest that your kid is going to catch a beating or something for refusing to consent to a search. Give the officers more credit than that.

RussP
08-17-2011, 13:22
He and his buddy were at a friends house playing an online game (yeah I know, total waste of time). Since the neighborhood blacked out, gaming was obviously stopped so instead of staying the night they decided to head for home.Thank you.Think about it for a moment. If you were 19 and out causing trouble or doing something you darn well know you aught not to be doing, get pulled over and searched, etc. etc. but let go with a warning, would you really tell your parents about it???

I wouldn't because I wouldn't want to explain why I got pulled over in the first place.

And I'm not saying that they "need to be dis-trusted".

Nor am I an angry parent. I think that it certainly posed for an uncomfortable situation for him to be in and I honestly could not tell him that next time he should deny the officers request for reasons mentioned above.

I was (and am) a little perplexed on how one could handle that situation without getting arrested or groped.There's still a little information we don't know. Did the officers ask why they were in the neighborhood? What was the answer? To whom is the car they were in registered?

nikerret
08-17-2011, 13:46
It's all about how you say things. A person who is well versed and can deliver a message appropriately can get away with almost anything.

Remain polite, calm, and without emphatic gesticulations and there will likely be an easy exchange without much opportunity for misunderstandings.

Roering
08-17-2011, 13:57
Thank you.There's still a little information we don't know. Did the officers ask why they were in the neighborhood? What was the answer? To whom is the car they were in registered?

OK.

The officer's did ask and they answered as well as told them the address of where they came from. Told them where they were going (only about 3 miles away) which was back to their respective homes, and they both presented their drivers licenses to verify where they lived. The car was registered in the drivers name and proof of insurance was also presented.

Roering
08-17-2011, 14:07
I completely and totally DISAGREE with this assessment. Refusing consent to search is NOT "combative" by any definition of the term that is applicable to law enforcement officers on patrol. May it be construed as "uncooperative" or "suspicious", perhaps...but let's not get so far ahead of ourselves as to suggest that your kid is going to catch a beating or something for refusing to consent to a search. Give the officers more credit than that.

To be brutally honest with you, and please understand I mean no disrespect, but just because they are in uniforms does not necessarily mean they are to be trusted to be calm and level headed when a couple of young adults say no to a search. They are also complete strangers. Like he said "yeah, but they are also a couple of guys with guns".

The policemen don't know these two guys, and these two guys don't know the policemen. Neither has any reason to trust each other. That's kind of a part of what made this a difficult situation.

Roering
08-17-2011, 14:17
I'm not completely clear on why the situation was "bad". Stopping cars with defective equipment is SOP and good police work.

Brake lights were operational. After the police let them go they checked them out (one pushing on the brakes while the other stood in back to see if they lit up).

It was the reason given for the stop though.

steveksux
08-17-2011, 14:18
What happens if citizens no longer trust the police?

A whole lot of Platinum Memberships for GnG...

Randy

Roering
08-17-2011, 14:19
It's all about how you say things. A person who is well versed and can deliver a message appropriately can get away with almost anything.

Remain polite, calm, and without emphatic gesticulations and there will likely be an easy exchange without much opportunity for misunderstandings.

True, but even to a good communicator it adds a level of difficulty when you are denying an officer's request.

Dukeboy01
08-17-2011, 14:24
Your kid appears to have not learned that life isn't fair. In his mind, he knows that he's a decent person who was only out playing video games until two in the morning, so it's just totally soooooooo unfair that he and his buddy would be pulled over and slightly inconvenienced because they weren't doing anything. That's not how the world works.

Sometimes things beyond your control (blackout) and things within your control (failing to maintain functioning brake lights, being out a driving around at 0200) will conspire against you to draw unnecessary attention from the various authorities in your life, be it the police, your parents, your boss, or (let's be honest) your spouse. In reality you're innocent and with a little explanation, you'll eventually be proven innocent. But you're still going to get hassled and have to deal with it. The sooner your kid figures that out, the happier he will be.

It's not that hard to live a life free of hassle from the police (or other authorities). Fix broken equipment on your car as soon as you become aware of it. Don't drive around with broken equipment after midnight. Change those two little details (or probably just change one of them) and the stop doesn't happen.

Roering
08-17-2011, 14:47
Sometimes things beyond your control (blackout) and things within your control (failing to maintain functioning brake lights, being out a driving around at 0200) will conspire against you to draw unnecessary attention from the various authorities in your life, be it the police, your parents, your boss, or (let's be honest) your spouse. In reality you're innocent and with a little explanation, you'll eventually be proven innocent. But you're still going to get hassled and have to deal with it. The sooner your kid figures that out, the happier he will be.

Oh he knows life isn't fair. That's a big reason why he just went along with the request. He figured it was the quickest way to get this over with. He knew that denying the request could land him and his buddy in jail or worse and have his friends car towed and impounded which can get expensive. He didn't pitch a fit, he didn't complain to the police, he just went with it because he knew it was to him the only way of keeping a bad situation from becoming worse.

Like I said, the lights were operational.

volsbear
08-17-2011, 15:29
I think that junior would benefit from accepting something -

Regardless of his personal feelings for the police (and their big bad guns), we WANT to live in a world where a vehicle being driven at 2am by two adult males in a neighborhood experiencing a blackout gets the attention of a beat cop.

I didn't go away to college until I was about 22. Prior to that, I lived with my parents. I kept weird hours due to jobs and such and frequently drove him well after midnight. I got stopped a couple of times. And while I'm sure I was agitated at the time, after I considered the crappy neighborhood I lived in, I remember feeling a great sense of RELIEF that the beat cops were thoughtful enough to actually keep an eye on potentially unsavory activity.

That's sort of the job.

ETA: I still maintain that one or both of them gestured, postured, leaned, wiggled, or said something to prompt the request to search.

Straight Pipe
08-17-2011, 15:43
"Yeah Dad, but they are also a couple of guys with guns."

A statement my son made after he and his friend were pulled over in a quiet neighborhood experiencing a black out at 2 in the morning for a faulty brake light.

Long story short is that the car was searched as were they (TSA style with a full groping of his junk). When he got home he told me about the whole ordeal and when I asked him why he didn't just politely object to the search because they know what his rights are this was his response.

Essentially he was intimidated by the officers and quiet frankly too scared to say anything when asked. This was his first experience with policemen aside from hearing them speak at his school.

He went on to tell me that non compliance could be construed as giving them attitude and he didn't want to escalate an already bad situation. I had to think about it for awhile and I'm not sure I can disagree with him. He's a good kid but the policemen who pulled him over don't know that.

So my question is really geared toward any officers, especially those who have kids. How can a 19 y/o exercise his rights in that situation without coming off as uncooperative or giving off the appearance of attitude?

What happens if citizen's no longer trust the police?

I was going to say, "Post in GNG." but after reading your assinine post I see you have moved on to greener pastures.

Roering
08-17-2011, 15:45
I think that junior would benefit from accepting something -

Regardless of his personal feelings for the police (and their big bad guns), we WANT to live in a world where a vehicle being driven at 2am by two adult males in a neighborhood experiencing a blackout gets the attention of a beat cop.

I didn't go away to college until I was about 22. Prior to that, I lived with my parents. I kept weird hours due to jobs and such and frequently drove him well after midnight. I got stopped a couple of times. And while I'm sure I was agitated at the time, after I considered the crappy neighborhood I lived in, I remember feeling a great sense of RELIEF that the beat cops were thoughtful enough to actually keep an eye on potentially unsavory activity.

That's sort of the job.

ETA: I still maintain that one or both of them gestured, postured, leaned, wiggled, or said something to prompt the request to search.

You have also been searched and groped for driving at late hours?

One or both of them may have behaved suspiciously. They were both nervous from the get go. That alone would probably be enough for the officers to take a little longer before being comfortable with letting them go.

Straight Pipe
08-17-2011, 15:45
Still real dry here in Texas. No rain in the forecast. We could really use some.

Roering
08-17-2011, 15:47
Still real dry here in Texas. No rain in the forecast. We could really use some.

I heard that a lot of Ranchers had to send a lot of their cattle to processing due to lack of grazing fields.

(Yes, I'll participate in your threadjack)

volsbear
08-17-2011, 15:52
You have also been searched and groped for driving at late hours?

One or both of them may have behaved suspiciously. They were both nervous from the get go. That alone would probably be enough for the officers to take a little longer before being comfortable with letting them go.

Yep. At least twice I can think of. Once was when I was about 17 or 18 delivering pizzas for a place that delivered LATE at night. I think it was open until 2am. And pizza drivers in the area where notorious for running drugs and booze.

But the real treat was when I was about 20 maybe. Got stopped shortly after leaving a pool hall where we congregated after work. It was maybe 3 or 4am. A guy I worked with apparently had a warrant for a traffic case which the police got turned onto while running random license plates in the parking lot. So when he walked to his car, they popped him on the warrant and then stopped to check the rest of us out at all. The treat was that the officer who grabbed my junk was female, nice looking. That wasn't so bad.

Honestly - any late night interaction with the police is going to cause some anxiety and even embarrassment (nobody wants to be perceived as doing something wrong when they're not). That's only natural. And if this was your son's first late-night pow-wow with the po-po, I'm sure he was nervous. But most pro-social people go about their business afterward, calm down, and come to the conclusion that we WANT the police sniffing around after dark. If your son doesn't see that and still sees the police as just the scary men with guns, there might be an inherent emotional maturity thing going on.

You haven't indicated that your son was otherwise treated disrespectfully, so I'm not sure why this was such a huge deal for him after the fact.

volsbear
08-17-2011, 15:52
I heard that a lot of Ranchers had to send a lot of their cattle to processing due to lack of grazing fields.

(Yes, I'll participate in your threadjack)

Just wait 'til next year when beef prices skyrocket because the supply is down.

RussP
08-17-2011, 16:00
OK.

The officer's did ask and they answered as well as told them the address of where they came from. Told them where they were going (only about 3 miles away) which was back to their respective homes, and they both presented their drivers licenses to verify where they lived. The car was registered in the drivers name and proof of insurance was also presented.Thank you.

DaBigBR
08-17-2011, 16:13
To be brutally honest with you, and please understand I mean no disrespect, but just because they are in uniforms does not necessarily mean they are to be trusted to be calm and level headed when a couple of young adults say no to a search. They are also complete strangers. Like he said "yeah, but they are also a couple of guys with guns".

The policemen don't know these two guys, and these two guys don't know the policemen. Neither has any reason to trust each other. That's kind of a part of what made this a difficult situation.

I think that it means that they should be expected to remain calm and level headed. Do you know how much of a "non-event" asking for consent to search during a traffic stop is? It's right up there with making sure the lights work at the beginning of the shift. Forgive me for expecting so much from people who are serving in an honorable and professional occupation, having successfully passed a myriad of entry testing (cognitive, physical, and psychological) as well as a background investigation and in almost all cases a training academy and field traing program. Until stories about crooked cops become too common to be sensational, interesting news, I think it's safe to assume that asserting ones rights (particularly politely and calmly) will not result in somebody getting their butt kicked.

RussP
08-17-2011, 16:47
So my question is really geared toward any officers, especially those who have kids. How can a 19 y/o exercise his rights in that situation without coming off as uncooperative or giving off the appearance of attitude?Roering, here is my suggestion, and keep in mind I am not a cop, but it is advice about interacting with law enforcement I offer to people getting their carry permits.

Sit down with your son and come up with a few scenarios involving law enforcement. Develop appropriate short scripts he can follow when he needs to. Choose words that are neutral. Keep sentences short. Then y'all practice. You play the cops. After a few rehersals, start giving him some crap, yell at him, whatever you want to do to frustrate him. See how he does.

Also read this thread by Sam Spade about LE Contacts: Rights and Powers, http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=994145, it will help. If you have other questions, ask them.

Roering
08-17-2011, 16:48
Just wait 'til next year when beef prices skyrocket because the supply is down.

I eat too much beef anyways. Maybe this will be the time to use more lamb or duck or turkey.

Roering
08-17-2011, 16:58
Roering, here is my suggestion, and keep in mind I am not a cop, but it is advice about interacting with law enforcement I offer to people getting their carry permits.

Sit down with your son and come up with a few scenarios involving law enforcement. Develop appropriate short scripts he can follow when he needs to. Choose words that are neutral. Keep sentences short. Then y'all practice. You play the cops. After a few rehersals, start giving him some crap, yell at him, whatever you want to do to frustrate him. See how he does.

Also read this thread by Sam Spade about LE Contacts: Rights and Powers, http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=994145, it will help. If you have other questions, ask them.

Thank you for the link. Great info.

PuroMexicano
08-17-2011, 17:16
Lighten up guys. :P

OP, just always remember these few rules when having an encounter with the POPO :supergrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

x_out86
08-17-2011, 17:18
With respect, even as I attempt to give it straight:

If someone is in such a state that he doesn't know or is afraid to exercise his rights, he has a problem, not me. This society is predicated on the idea that free men are knowledgable and willing participants in its governing. That includes their ability to judge facts and make decisions. That includes their willingness to act as a brake on government excess. If someone is old enough to drive, old enough to vote, serve on a jury and enlist in our Armed Forces, then he ought to be old enough to knowingly and intelligently exercise his rights.

I'm sorry that your son isn't there. I do not know if this is a failure of home or of schooling or something else. I'm pretty sure, *almost* certain that it wasn't a failure of the two guys that your community commissioned to patrol the streets while you're asleep, responding to emergencies and hunting criminals in between those responses.

How to exercise your rights is a subsidiary question here. The root issue is the lack of will to do so, not the best statment to use. If you dont work on that with your boy, the rest of the scenario doesnt matter.

Again, I'm not trying to cut on you, I don't know where you live or what crime and cops are like there. I really want an educated citizenry of thinkers and participants in society. I hope for guys who do the right thing and the best thing, not guys who roll over because I've got a gun.

Work on his knowing his place, and the rest follows.

Well said Sam.

The thing I fail to understand is why the OP is so upset in the first place. From what I understand his son was not treated badly, beaten, threatened, or even cited. Officers obviously made a legitimate stop and there were other facts that we dont know about the lead to a non-custodial search of his person and vehicle. Just like Sam said, just because the kid did not choose to exercise his right(s) does not make what the officers did wrong in any way, shape or form (with the info we have at this point). I fail to see the reason for the complaint. Nobody got arrested, cited or anything else. No harm, no foul IMHO.

To you, he's your kid. At 02:00 in a traffic stop he's an unknown adult male.

BAM! Hit it right on the head Russ.

We dont know these people from Adam. In my area, stopping a suspicious vehicle in a residential area at 2am is called "Good Police Work". This is how crimes get solved...Officers who notice things that dont seem right and they investigate further.

Roering
08-17-2011, 17:34
Well said Sam.

The thing I fail to understand is why the OP is so upset in the first place. From what I understand his son was not treated badly, beaten, threatened, or even cited. Officers obviously made a legitimate stop and there were other facts that we dont know about the lead to a non-custodial search of his person and vehicle. Just like Sam said, just because the kid did not choose to exercise his right(s) does not make what the officers did wrong in any way, shape or form (with the info we have at this point). I fail to see the reason for the complaint. Nobody got arrested, cited or anything else. No harm, no foul IMHO.



BAM! Hit it right on the head Russ.

We dont know these people from Adam. In my area, stopping a suspicious vehicle in a residential area at 2am is called "Good Police Work". This is how crimes get solved...Officers who notice things that dont seem right and they investigate further.

Not upset, never claimed that the officers did anything wrong, did not complain. You're missing the content and purpose of the OP.

nikerret
08-17-2011, 20:11
True, but even to a good communicator it adds a level of difficulty when you are denying an officer's request.

Not if you have an understanding of the differences and options presented when given a demand versus a request.

You have also been searched and groped for driving at late hours?


Yes, I was held on the side of the road for much longer than I should have been when I was 18. A vehicle similar to mine, at the time, ran from an officer before i entered the area.

Other officers showed up and told him it wasn't me, my vehicle was a newer generation than the one that ran. The initiating officer wouldn't let it go.

I was pissed, he was pissed. I tried to leave a few times, he wouldn't let me. Eventually, I was told to go home.

Ironically, I was paired with him during a DUI checkpoint I volunteered to assist at through the local Sheriff's Office. It was awkward. I don't think he ever believed it wasn't me that ran from him.

Roering
08-17-2011, 21:13
Not if you have an understanding of the differences and options presented when given a demand versus a request.



Yes, I was held on the side of the road for much longer than I should have been when I was 18. A vehicle similar to mine, at the time, ran from an officer before i entered the area.

Other officers showed up and told him it wasn't me, my vehicle was a newer generation than the one that ran. The initiating officer wouldn't let it go.

I was pissed, he was pissed. I tried to leave a few times, he wouldn't let me. Eventually, I was told to go home.

Ironically, I was paired with him during a DUI checkpoint I volunteered to assist at through the local Sheriff's Office. It was awkward. I don't think he ever believed it wasn't me that ran from him.

Would have been hard not to play that one up. "Dude, remember the time I got away from you?"

RocPO
08-18-2011, 12:09
Just because you don't trust a total stranger, it doesn't make them bad.

When it comes to your child apparently. However, I enjoyed this contradiction below:

but just because they are in uniforms does not necessarily mean they are to be trusted to be calm and level headed when a couple of young adults say no to a search.

So we're supposed to assume that some guys we pull over at night are OK people, even if they're total strangers. However, if its a cop in a uniform, in a marked car, who has been through rigorous testing prior to getting on the job, they shouldn't necessarily be trusted? :upeyes:


To answer the question, your son could have told the officer simply "I do not consent to a search." At which point, without probable cause, the search would not have been conducted. If there was PC for a search, I would have gone ahead IN THAT EVENT. And "groping"? Really? I doubt it. A thorough search, probably. You'd be amazed how often I've found drugs in interesting places.

Cochese
08-18-2011, 12:33
Found a gun in some *****es panties at our jail. She was trying to smuggle it in to her boyfriend who got housed a few months earlier. She got arrested INTENTIONALLY, with the express intent of smuggling a firearm into a secure facility.

We still don't know if boyfriend was gonna sell it for ciggys or use it to blast another inmate or unarmed detention officer.

groping

:upeyes:

Patchman
08-18-2011, 13:01
You have also been searched and groped for driving at late hours?


Your son and friends weren't groped. They were search in the proper way.

Based on everything you've posted so far, along with the condition (blackout) and time of night, I don't see anything the LEO did that can be considered unprofessional.

As I posted before, it's nothing personal. Strictly business.

Roering
08-18-2011, 13:15
When it comes to your child apparently. However, I enjoyed this contradiction below:



So we're supposed to assume that some guys we pull over at night are OK people, even if they're total strangers. However, if its a cop in a uniform, in a marked car, who has been through rigorous testing prior to getting on the job, they shouldn't necessarily be trusted? :upeyes:


To answer the question, your son could have told the officer simply "I do not consent to a search." At which point, without probable cause, the search would not have been conducted. If there was PC for a search, I would have gone ahead IN THAT EVENT. And "groping"? Really? I doubt it. A thorough search, probably. You'd be amazed how often I've found drugs in interesting places.

It's not a contradiction. Neither should necessarily be trusted as both are total strangers. And that doesn't make either of them "bad" necessarily. I guess a question would be:

Is being out at 2 in the morning probable cause for a search?

volsbear
08-18-2011, 13:20
It's not a contradiction. Neither should necessarily be trusted as both are total strangers. And that doesn't make either of them "bad" necessarily. I guess a question would be:

Is being out at 2 in the morning probable cause for a search?

Not in and of itself. But then again, the police didn't need probable cause. Your son consented.

RussP
08-18-2011, 13:23
Is being out at 2 in the morning probable cause for a search?Wouldn't you agree that would depend on the rest of the circumstances?

Cochese
08-18-2011, 13:33
Is being out at 2 in the morning probable cause for a search?

Depends on the circumstances surrounding the contact, the actions of the subject of the contact, time, location, criminal activity in the area, vehicle, etc.

None of this matters though because your boy provided CTS.

Patchman
08-18-2011, 13:43
A statement my son made after he and his friend were pulled over in a quiet neighborhood experiencing a black out at 2 in the morning for a faulty brake light.

Long story short is that the car was searched as were they (TSA style with a full groping of his junk). When he got home he told me about the whole ordeal...

I asked him why he didn't just politely object to the search because they know what his rights are this was his response.

He went on to tell me that non compliance could be construed as giving them attitude and he didn't want to escalate an already bad situation.


"Groping." "Ordeal"? "An already bad situation"?

Now I'm curious. Seems the OP is alot of drama about nothing. A broken brake light is an equipment violation. Fix it and show it to the local LE and they give you a violation-is-fixed form and you send it in. Or have a receipt from a mechanic or a car parts store and send it in. That's the end of it.

nmk
08-18-2011, 15:57
Your kid appears to have not learned that life isn't fair. In his mind, he knows that he's a decent person who was only out playing video games until two in the morning, so it's just totally soooooooo unfair that he and his buddy would be pulled over and slightly inconvenienced because they weren't doing anything. That's not how the world works.

Sometimes things beyond your control (blackout) and things within your control (failing to maintain functioning brake lights, being out a driving around at 0200) will conspire against you to draw unnecessary attention from the various authorities in your life, be it the police, your parents, your boss, or (let's be honest) your spouse. In reality you're innocent and with a little explanation, you'll eventually be proven innocent. But you're still going to get hassled and have to deal with it. The sooner your kid figures that out, the happier he will be.

It's not that hard to live a life free of hassle from the police (or other authorities). Fix broken equipment on your car as soon as you become aware of it. Don't drive around with broken equipment after midnight. Change those two little details (or probably just change one of them) and the stop doesn't happen.

I agree with your points, but "proven innocent" sounds a little off.

msu_grad_121
08-18-2011, 16:57
It's not a contradiction. Neither should necessarily be trusted as both are total strangers. And that doesn't make either of them "bad" necessarily. I guess a question would be:

Is being out at 2 in the morning probable cause for a search?

I would argue that indeed what you posted IS a contradiction. Police officers are there to serve the public trust, and if you had ANY idea the hoops and testing and accountability that are present in todays law enforcement, I don't think you would say something implying the officers aren't by and large deserving of your son's (and your) trust. The whole point to wearing the uniform is to symbolize authority and trust. Have there been bad eggs? Without a doubt. However, saying that your son shouldn't trust the officers to do their job and keep their cool in such a non-event as this traffic stop is on it's face patently ridiculous.

The officers are employed by an agency that fully trusts them to discharge their duties without passion or prejudice, and have earned that trust by proving themselves time and again to be professional, calm, decent people who are capable of handling such responsibility. To indulge thoughts that an officer cannot or should not be trusted merely because you don't know them personally is silly, and speaks to your outlook on authority in general.

If you and your son truly feel slighted by this little interaction, I would encourage you to contact the officer's supervisor and request a sit down so as to allow that supervisor to explain SOPs and the level of recruitment and training these officers receive, as well as seek their counsel on how these sorts of situations should be handled in the future. I'll lay odds that the supervisor says nearly the same things that you've heard here.

Rant off.

ETA: Bonus if they will show you the video of your son's stop. Remember, you're getting only his side of the story, and we're getting it through the filter that is you.

Roering
08-18-2011, 17:35
"Groping." "Ordeal"? "An already bad situation"?

Now I'm curious. Seems the OP is alot of drama about nothing. A broken brake light is an equipment violation. Fix it and show it to the local LE and they give you a violation-is-fixed form and you send it in. Or have a receipt from a mechanic or a car parts store and send it in. That's the end of it.

1. Brake light was operational.
2. Has nothing to do with the question.
3. Being pulled over at 2 in the morning, sitting on the curb while the car is being searched is a bad situation, but I guess that's relative.
4. Fondled, private area touching. Don't get caught up on semantics. I'll just say searched if that helps.
5. Again, has nothing to do with the question.

Roering
08-18-2011, 17:40
Not in and of itself. But then again, the police didn't need probable cause. Your son consented.

True, but that goes into the question, if they did not consent what are the chances of arrest given all the circumstances provided?

And if arrested and not charged, would the car get towed and impounded at the drivers expense?

These questions are a part of the reasoning that goes into just consenting to everything to get it over with as soon as possible.

That is probably why most people consent in the first place.

Patchman
08-18-2011, 18:03
1. Brake light was operational.

Well, when your son was pulled over, he didn't know the brake light was working or not, correct? The LEO told him it was broken. So given that a equipment violation is a non-event if you have it fixed, how is it "an already bad situation?"

You wrote that it was "already a bad situation." So what else preceded the stop that made it an already bad situation? That's what I don't understand. Please explain the situation, or why you used that phrase.


2. Has nothing to do with the question.

No, it does not. Nor was it intended to.

3. Being pulled over at 2 in the morning, sitting on the curb while the car is being searched is a bad situation, but I guess that's relative.

Yes, I would imagine it is. And I can see how a bunch of 19-20 y.os would feel intimidated. But he consented to the search (and he already knew he did not have to), fearing (in your words), he didn't want to escalate "an already bad situation." So, again, what was the "already bad situation" your son and his friends believed they were in?



4. Fondled, private area touching. Don't get caught up on semantics. I'll just say searched if that helps.

You're the one who used "fondled." Perhaps you were unintentionally loose with your words, or perhaps you knew perfectly well what effect you wanted to make. Instead of saying "fondled," how about just admit he was "properly searched" as per every LE protocol out there?

No need to be homophobic about this point. As a female police instructor once said, "it's really not that big, so don't be afraid to reach up there."

5. Again, has nothing to do with the question.

Again, it does not. Again, nor was it intended to.

DaBigBR
08-18-2011, 18:16
1. Brake light was operational.
2. Has nothing to do with the question.
3. Being pulled over at 2 in the morning, sitting on the curb while the car is being searched is a bad situation, but I guess that's relative.
4. Fondled, private area touching. Don't get caught up on semantics. I'll just say searched if that helps.
5. Again, has nothing to do with the question.

There have been a number of times in my career where I have stopped a vehicle for an equipment violation, only to have the light start working before the end of the stop or discover that it was merely very dim, dirty, etc. I once stopped a car a second time immediately after releasing them so that we could both look at the video and confirm that it was not working. Based on the way the stop went to that point, I suspect that I saved myself a complaint that way.

True, but that goes into the question, if they did not consent what are the chances of arrest given all the circumstances provided?

And if arrested and not charged, would the car get towed and impounded at the drivers expense?

These questions are a part of the reasoning that goes into just consenting to everything to get it over with as soon as possible.

That is probably why most people consent in the first place.

What crime would they have been arrested for? Probable cause to arrest and probable cause to charge are the same thing...PC is PC.

I get the overwhelming impression that we are not going to change your mind. You seem to think that your son was stopped without cause, badgered in to consenting to a search, and then searched improperly. The members of the forum that have law enforcement experience have provided you a lot of feedback, but obviously have not changed your mind. I strongly encourage you to do as one of the other users suggested and take your qualms up with the officer's supervisor.

txleapd
08-18-2011, 18:20
David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) was caught because some cop wasn't out catching real criminals, and scratched a parking ticket for his illegally parked car.

Timothy McVeigh (OKC bomber) was caught because some cop wasn't out catching real criminals, and stopped him for an LP violation.

There are many more examples, but these two should be enough to get the point across.

txleapd
08-18-2011, 18:30
I knew I forgot another high profile serial killer... Ted Bundy. Guess how he got a caught?

Eric Rudolph got caught by a rookie officer, who saw him going through a trashcan, and decided to talk to him.

txleapd
08-18-2011, 18:31
Warren Jeffs

txleapd
08-18-2011, 18:31
Peter Sutcliffe

txleapd
08-18-2011, 18:32
Joel Rifkin

txleapd
08-18-2011, 18:33
I hope 7 examples are enough so some people can get the idea....

Sam Spade
08-18-2011, 18:33
True, but that goes into the question, if they did not consent what are the chances of arrest given all the circumstances provided?

And if arrested and not charged, would the car get towed and impounded at the drivers expense?

These questions are a part of the reasoning that goes into just consenting to everything to get it over with as soon as possible.

That is probably why most people consent in the first place.

Given the circumstances, low to zero. You've not articulated probable cause that there was an actual crime. Traffic violation, yes. Reaonable suspicion of mopery, perhaps. Go-to-jail crime, no.

Tow policies vary widely by agency. Ask locally.

And BTW, consent can be withdrawn at any time after it's given.

TXCOPPER
08-18-2011, 19:58
"Groping." "Ordeal"? "An already bad situation"?

Now I'm curious. Seems the OP is alot of drama about nothing. A broken brake light is an equipment violation. Fix it and show it to the local LE and they give you a violation-is-fixed form and you send it in. Or have a receipt from a mechanic or a car parts store and send it in. That's the end of it.

I have to agree. It sounded from the beginning like the OP came in with a bit of a slant. It also sounded that way when after a simple traffic stop (and many people have already explained why this stop was more than reasonable) you wonder if a previous conversation about a police brutality incident (I'm not familiar with the incident you mentioned) was fresh in his mind?

I wouldn't immediately equate a simple traffic stop and professional conduct by the officers with a beating or something arousing suspicion. But that's just me I guess?

RussP
08-18-2011, 20:09
True, but that goes into the question, if they did not consent what are the chances of arrest given all the circumstances provided?

And if arrested and not charged, would the car get towed and impounded at the drivers expense?

These questions are a part of the reasoning that goes into just consenting to everything to get it over with as soon as possible.

That is probably why most people consent in the first place.So with the information you've received, how are you going to counsel your son and his friend?

nikerret
08-18-2011, 22:38
I hope 7 examples are enough so some people can get the idea....

Stupid man.

jnc36rcpd
08-19-2011, 00:55
Roering, I'm immediately implementing a policy that officers never stop your son, never grope or fondle your son, and certainly not do anything to upset your son.
Many cops just try to avoid hassles. If you make a lot of stops, you get a lot of problems. If you make a few stops, you get a few problems. If you make no stops, you get no problems. For you as a citizen, think of this as the last days of the Roman Empire. By the way, you're the Roman citizen.

All this community policing nonsense implies that police and citizens work together.

Well, nice in theory, but the citizens have lost our trust. Best of luck when the next blackout occurs in your neighborhood and someone is kicking down your door.

volsbear
08-19-2011, 03:59
I'm beginning to understand why the son is such a drama queen!


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

txleapd
08-19-2011, 05:07
Stupid man.

Sorry... Not tracking.

Did your response go right over my head, or am I correctly taking it like I'm reading it (you're calling me stupid)?

pgg00
08-19-2011, 05:55
Sorry... Not tracking.

Did your response go right over my head, or am I correctly taking it like I'm reading it (you're calling me stupid)?

I think he meant the OP :whistling:

txleapd
08-19-2011, 05:57
Stupid man.

I think he meant the OP :whistling:

I must have gotten confused, since he quoted me.

volsbear
08-19-2011, 08:44
I must have gotten confused, since he quoted me.

I believe it was intended as sarcasm - as in, "stupid" to think he'd get the point with only 7 examples. At least that's how I read it.

Of course, if he DID call you stupid, and we're both left wondering what he meant, then I guess it applies to both of us :tongueout:

Patchman
08-19-2011, 08:46
Of course, if he DID call you stupid, and we're both left wondering what he meant, then I guess it applies to both of us :tongueout:


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

txleapd
08-19-2011, 09:03
I believe it was intended as sarcasm - as in, "stupid" to think he'd get the point with only 7 examples. At least that's how I read it.

Of course, if he DID call you stupid, and we're both left wondering what he meant, then I guess it applies to both of us :tongueout:

At this point I guess I couldn't really refute it if he was addressing me... :whistling:

:faint:

Mayhem like Me
08-19-2011, 13:05
At this point I guess I couldn't really refute it if he was addressing me... :whistling:

:faint:

I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm as in stupid man NORMAL people would get it after 7 tries but we are dealing with...........................something else

ateamer
08-19-2011, 13:22
Many cops just try to avoid hassles. If you make a lot of stops, you get a lot of problems. If you make a few stops, you get a few problems. If you make no stops, you get no problems.
Like one of our sergeants told someone who complained about being stopped: You can't make tuna salad without netting a few dolphins.

volsbear
08-19-2011, 13:30
Like one of our sergeants told someone who complained about being stopped: You can't make tuna salad without netting a few dolphins.

I've always equated LE work with playing basketball. If you finish a game without 3-4 fouls, you weren't playing hard enough. If you get ejected, you were playing too hard.

Morris
08-19-2011, 13:47
This thread is chock full of stupid . . . and winning! :rofl:

Who wants popcorn?

RussP
08-19-2011, 14:57
:popcorn:

BarrySDCA
08-19-2011, 15:09
what is the probable cause to pull them over? I don't understand how the police can just pull over two adults because of a neighborhood blackout which they had nothing to do with in the first place. And to suggest that because they are out at 2AM when there happens to be a blackout immediately means they are suspected of committing a crime is absurd. It sounds like we do not have all the facts.

DPRankin85
08-19-2011, 15:17
what is the probable cause to pull them over?

Uhhh...non-operational brake lights?

Roering
08-19-2011, 15:49
what is the probable cause to pull them over? I don't understand how the police can just pull over two adults because of a neighborhood blackout which they had nothing to do with in the first place. And to suggest that because they are out at 2AM when there happens to be a blackout immediately means they are suspected of committing a crime is absurd. It sounds like we do not have all the facts.

It's not absurd at all. It's 2AM, they were in or near a neighborhood experiencing a blackout. Stopping them to check them out (ask a few questions, check ID) is perfectly reasonable. It's a part of the job.

Telling them that the brake light is out when it wasn't is dishonest though. I see no reason why one couldn't tell them the real reason they were pulled over.

msu_grad_121
08-19-2011, 17:32
It's not absurd at all. It's 2AM, they were in or near a neighborhood experiencing a blackout. Stopping them to check them out (ask a few questions, check ID) is perfectly reasonable. It's a part of the job.

Telling them that the brake light is out when it wasn't is dishonest though. I see no reason why one couldn't tell them the real reason they were pulled over.

I would say that if they told them the brake light wasn't operating, chances are it wasn't operating. Even if it was a pretext stop (which is fully legal), saying that it wasn't when it was can still get you in a heap of trouble.

Be honest, which is more likely, the officers lied in order to stop, intimidate, harass and grope or fondle your son, or the car has some issue like a loose wire leading to the brake light only working intermittently?

Roering
08-19-2011, 17:39
I would say that if they told them the brake light wasn't operating, chances are it wasn't operating.

And then at the very next application of the brakes it was operating? :upeyes:

groovyash
08-19-2011, 21:08
what is the probable cause to pull them over? I don't understand how the police can just pull over two adults because of a neighborhood blackout which they had nothing to do with in the first place. And to suggest that because they are out at 2AM when there happens to be a blackout immediately means they are suspected of committing a crime is absurd. It sounds like we do not have all the facts.

Reasonable Suspicion not Probable Cause, much different and lower threshold of proof required for a traffic stop or investigatory detention.

BarrySDCA
08-19-2011, 21:12
Reasonable Suspicion not Probable Cause, much different and lower threshold of proof required for a traffic stop or investigatory detention.

same argument applies for reasonable suspicion. are you telling me that if you happen to be out in a neighborhood where the power has gone out - and minding your own business, the police would have reason to stop you just for being in the neighborhood? that does not at all seem reasonable.

still sounds like some information is missing.

msu_grad_121
08-19-2011, 21:34
And then at the very next application of the brakes it was operating? :upeyes:

Once again, we're getting this information 3rd hand. Your son and his friend told you something, which you are telling us. Who is to say that when your son and his friend checked the brake light, they didn't tap on it and just forget to tell you about it, or something similiar?

What I'm saying is, there are SO many statutes within the Motor Vehicle Code that no officer ever has to lie to initiate a traffic stop, so why would they risk the accusation of impropriety simply to harass and "grope" your son?

Occam's razor: "The hypothesis with the fewest assumptions tends to be the correct one." Your hypothesis makes several assumptions, mine is far more likely.

TXCOPPER
08-19-2011, 21:34
same argument applies for reasonable suspicion. are you telling me that if you happen to be out in a neighborhood where the power has gone out - and minding your own business, the police would have reason to stop you just for being in the neighborhood? that does not at all seem reasonable.

still sounds like some information is missing.

You're not reading or listening carefully. It's been said several times. The reason given for the stop (i.e. Reasonable suspicion/PC for the stop) was a non-operational brake light.

To the OP: I have, on multiple occasions, stopped someone for a defective tail light/brake light, only to have it start working again after the stop. Sometimes even before the person has stopped the vehicle. A loose wire is often the culprit. As I tell people all the time, I have too many valid laws and reasons to use to stop you, why would I risk my job and reputation to make something up? Now whether the officers were using that reason to investigate what your son was doing in the area, looking for a specific suspect, or just trying to knock out some citations for the shift, it doesn't matter much as their initial reason for stopping them was almost certainly solid. Just my .02

TXCOPPER
08-19-2011, 21:37
msu_grad_121:

Sorry for the repetition, must have been typing when yours was posted. But I doubt the OP hearing it from two different officers who haven't 'conspired' to give the same answer will hurt anything.

msu_grad_121
08-19-2011, 21:48
msu_grad_121:

Sorry for the repetition, must have been typing when yours was posted. But I doubt the OP hearing it from two different officers who haven't 'conspired' to give the same answer will hurt anything.

Apologies not necessary, especially when you look at the times they were posted. What do they say about great minds and all? :supergrin:

Sadly, I have the distinct feeling that the OP has his mind made up, and no amount of common sense or logic will change that. Oh well...

Sharky7
08-19-2011, 21:53
And then at the very next application of the brakes it was operating? :upeyes:

Sure they said brake lights and not plate light? You weren't there anyways, so you can't answer that anyways. In LE, you learn quickly about the telephone game. Had a many fired up husband or dad call with a crazy jacked up story on what they "know" happened. Thankfully, in car video ends any stupid accusations quickly....when you tell them to bring in the person who was actually stopped to do a complaint, they never show.

Roering
08-19-2011, 22:19
post deleted.

msu_grad_121
08-19-2011, 22:50
In fact, on several occasions you called into question both their actions and their integrity:

Telling them that the brake light is out when it wasn't is dishonest though

Integrity...

Fondled, private area touching

Actions...

...just because they are in uniforms does not necessarily mean they are to be trusted to be calm and level headed...

Integrity...

Neither should necessarily be trusted as both are total strangers

Integrity and, as a bonus, trustworthiness.

Roering, do you know why police officers take statements such as these so personally? It's because in this profession (and yes, it IS a profession), all that any of us have is our integrity. To have that questioned unjustly is basically the greatest insult that one can hurl at an officer. Now, your questions were answered early on, and in fact several posters advised you to encourage your son to deny consent should he feel the need to, one even going so far as to suggest roleplaying exercises to that effect. If you notice, things became tense when you began to imply (intentionally or not) impropriety on the part of the officers through their actions or intents when dealing with your son. I can only hope that you didn't realize that a smear on those officers is a smear on everyone wearing a badge, and that your posts began to smear them rather handily.

You can take what I've said and believe what you want, I might be a genius, a jerk, or something in between. But whatever you think of me personally, do me a favor and try to put yourself on the other side of the badge, and have someone use carefully chosen, inflamitory words like "groped" or "fondled" when what should have been simply said was "searched." Try to hold your tongue when a fellow officer's integrity is challenged, and in a manner in which that officer is unable to defend their actions and state of mind. In short, try to walk a mile in our shoes before you pass judgement.

ETA: Well, I see the post this was directly relating to was deleted, but I stand by my statement.

groovyash
08-19-2011, 23:06
same argument applies for reasonable suspicion. are you telling me that if you happen to be out in a neighborhood where the power has gone out - and minding your own business, the police would have reason to stop you just for being in the neighborhood? that does not at all seem reasonable.

still sounds like some information is missing.

It certainly could be reasonable suspicion, particularly when taken in context with several other potential factors, i.e. driving pattern, known history in the area and so forth. If you take the time to read the narrative of the arrest report in the landmark Terry v. Ohio you see little more than two guys "minding there own business" walking back and forth in a dimly lit area near a closed business. The thing is that the culmination of these circumstances to a trained and experienced officer absolutely amounts to reasonable suspicion, which again is a very low threshold of proof.

All reasonable suspicion has to be is more than "He looked like he might be committing a crime." Something like "He was walking back and forth in a dark alley behind an unnoccupied building during hours no one is ordinarly there looking back to the street as if to check for police." is perfectly acceptable as R/S.

txleapd
08-19-2011, 23:53
what is the probable cause to pull them over?

The legal standard for a stop and detention is reasonable suspicion. The legal standard for an arrest and/or search (barring exemptions) is probable cause.

The difference between the two, on layman's terms, is that probable cause is 51% sure someone has committed a crime, and reasonable suspicion is more than a "mere hunch" someone has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

As you can see, the legal standard for a stop and detention is MUCH lower to stop someone, than it is to arrest them. Even if there were no obvious violations observed by the officer, based on the circumstances described, I could easily see an officer being able to articulate reasonable suspicion.

DaBigBR
08-20-2011, 04:58
...is that probable cause is 51% sure someone has committed a crime...[/I].

Incorrect. The probable cause standard falls under the 50% mark. The 50% standard is a preponderance of the evidence.

msu_grad_121
08-20-2011, 06:23
Incorrect. The probable cause standard falls under the 50% mark. The 50% standard is a preponderance of the evidence.

It was explained to us thusly in the academy, think of a baseball diamond. 1st base is Reasonable Suspicion, 2nd base is Preponderence of Evidence, 3rd base is Probable Cause, Home plate is Beyond a Resonable Doubt. While it's not technically correct from a legal standpoint, it puts the concepts into a form that's easily relateable and retainable. :dunno:

RussP
08-20-2011, 08:03
Roering, I asked before, what conversation have you had, are you going to have with your son? What advice are you going to give him?

Let me make another suggestion. Whenever your son and a friend are going to be out late driving, develop a habit of checking all lights on the car, parking, headlights, signals, hazard and plate lights. With brake lights, tell him to apply pressure lightly, gradually increasing pressure. I had a car once that when light pressure was applied to the brakes, the braking light on the right side would flicker a couple of times before going to full on.

Will this help if stopped? Don't know. It did help me once.

txleapd
08-20-2011, 09:34
Incorrect. The probable cause standard falls under the 50% mark. The 50% standard is a preponderance of the evidence.

You're right. I misspoke. I shouldn't be posting at 1:00 am on Saturday mornings. I apologize for confusing anyone.

BarrySDCA
08-20-2011, 10:42
The legal standard for a stop and detention is reasonable suspicion. The legal standard for an arrest and/or search (barring exemptions) is probable cause.

The difference between the two, on layman's terms, is that probable cause is 51% sure someone has committed a crime, and reasonable suspicion is more than a "mere hunch" someone has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

As you can see, the legal standard for a stop and detention is MUCH lower to stop someone, than it is to arrest them. Even if there were no obvious violations observed by the officer, based on the circumstances described, I could easily see an officer being able to articulate reasonable suspicion.

thanks everyone for the reasonable suspicion info...it is good to know.

however...

these two were driving down the street, not walking back and forth in a dimly lit area near a closed business. at least that's not what I read...I could be misisng something. still sounds to me like we do not have all the info.

wprebeck
08-20-2011, 11:31
thanks everyone for the reasonable suspicion info...it is good to know.

however...

these two were driving down the street, not walking back and forth in a dimly lit area near a closed business. at least that's not what I read...I could be misisng something. still sounds to me like we do not have all the info.

Barry, here's the thing -

Police try to catch criminals. Criminals do stupid stuff. So stupid, it defies all common sense, logic, and any reasonable standard one might choose to use.

Oft times, that stupid takes the form of committing blatant traffic offenses. Expired tags, cracked windows/windshields, headlights not on/not working, taillights not on/working, license plate not illuminated, failure to signal turn, speeding, not stopping at red lights/stop signs, and various other ofeenses for which one can be stopped.

Many times, the criminals commit these offenses while in the midst of other, more significant/serious crimes. Like burglary, robbery, dead bodies in the trunk, drug selling, drug buying, possessing illegal firearms, having warrants for any/all of the above.

People are just dumb, and do dumb things...especially criminals. So, seeing a vehicle with non-functioning brakes cruising down a street in the early morning when there's been a power outage just screams "Hey, I'm over here, come get me!!!!!!!" to a cop...at least, to one worth a damn. That's why he got pulled over. He fits several criteria that even a relatively inexperienced officer should know designates a possible criminal.

Of course, dear daddy doesn't believe so, since Junior apparently never does anything wrong. Sure, fine, whatever. Here's a suggestion for everyone out there - don't do stuff that seems suspicious. Yeah, yeah, I know "it's a free country, I wasn't doing anything wrong, papers please, blah, blah, blah". Unless you'd prefer police simply take reports after the crime occurs, then deal with the fact that sometimes, your perfectly legal behavior mmay be suspicious eenough to warrant a stop from your friendly neighborhood police officer.

DaBigBR
08-20-2011, 11:38
It was explained to us thusly in the academy, think of a baseball diamond. 1st base is Reasonable Suspicion, 2nd base is Preponderence of Evidence, 3rd base is Probable Cause, Home plate is Beyond a Resonable Doubt. While it's not technically correct from a legal standpoint, it puts the concepts into a form that's easily relateable and retainable. :dunno:

To carry on the analogy I think it would be more appropriate to say that probable cause is first base with a good lead and third base is "clear and convincing evidence", a standard that we don't talk about as much. I think a lot of cops lose sight of just how low of a standard probable cause actually is.

BarrySDCA
08-20-2011, 11:39
ok I totally missed the part with the non-working breaks. and that makes perfect sense now, thanks.

besides...stopping someone for bad breaks could actually be saving them from a serious accident later. so it goes two-ways. nobody has eyes in the back of their head and it seems reasonable to me that most people would appreciate someone telling them. strangers don't tend to do that for eachother any more.

msu_grad_121
08-20-2011, 13:35
To carry on the analogy I think it would be more appropriate to say that probable cause is first base with a good lead and third base is "clear and convincing evidence", a standard that we don't talk about as much. I think a lot of cops lose sight of just how low of a standard probable cause actually is.

The reason that was given for the analogy as it is (other than it's a breeze to remember) was that Reasonable Suspicion means that the situation gives you reason to believe an unknown person (ie a subject you have not stopped and identified) has committed SOME crime, hence 1st base - first step on the CJ scale.

Probable Cause would mean that it's JUST more likely than not that the specific person you have identifed has committed some specific crime that is known to you. I think this is where the 51% thing keeps coming up, but I would argue you've gone more than halfway due to your investigation - hence 3rd base.

Again, it's not a perfect analogy, especially when they throw in the standards of evidence, but it's easy to remember and relate to. Anyway, if you find it useful, I say take it and run, that's what I did.

PS - I like the aspect of a "lead" in the analogy, even I it makes my head hurt to try to incorporate it. :supergrin:

txleapd
08-20-2011, 13:53
I think a lot of cops lose sight of just how low of a standard probable cause actually is.

I think that it's the judges, who have to approve our PC, who have lost sight of this. We fight constant battles with judges, and DA's office, because they want proof beyond all reasonable doubt before they issue a warrant or approve charges.

DaBigBR
08-20-2011, 15:10
The reason that was given for the analogy as it is (other than it's a breeze to remember) was that Reasonable Suspicion means that the situation gives you reason to believe an unknown person (ie a subject you have not stopped and identified) has committed SOME crime, hence 1st base - first step on the CJ scale.

Probable Cause would mean that it's JUST more likely than not that the specific person you have identifed has committed some specific crime that is known to you. I think this is where the 51% thing keeps coming up, but I would argue you've gone more than halfway due to your investigation - hence 3rd base.

Again, it's not a perfect analogy, especially when they throw in the standards of evidence, but it's easy to remember and relate to. Anyway, if you find it useful, I say take it and run, that's what I did.

PS - I like the aspect of a "lead" in the analogy, even I it makes my head hurt to try to incorporate it. :supergrin:

I think that it's the judges, who have to approve our PC, who have lost sight of this. We fight constant battles with judges, and DA's office, because they want proof beyond all reasonable doubt before they issue a warrant or approve charges.

I think it's particularly true in a patrol setting, where most (or even all) of your arrests and searches are developed with evidence developed on view and the level of proof the patrol officer has before taking action is staggering. I think there's also a sliding scale of what constitutes "enough PC" (I hate that term...it's like being "a little pregnant") related to the severity of the offense. "Enough PC" to arrest for murder is likely less in the eyes of a judge or prosecutor than it is for a relatively minor offense. In other words, they're going to be willing to throw more court and prosecutorial resources at a more serious offense.

Roering
08-22-2011, 10:03
Roering, I asked before, what conversation have you had, are you going to have with your son? What advice are you going to give him?

Nothing I haven't told him already. If your not comfortable with a search you do not need to consent when asked but you may still get arrested and searched for non compliance if the officer believes he/she has enough reasonable suspicion/probable cause to do so.

As someone on this thread had already stated, asking to perform a search is sometimes just a formality.

volsbear
08-22-2011, 11:19
Nothing I haven't told him already. If your not comfortable with a search you do not need to consent when asked but you may still get arrested and searched for non compliance if the officer believes he/she has enough reasonable suspicion/probable cause to do so.

As someone on this thread had already stated, asking to perform a search is sometimes just a formality.

That's certainly good and accurate advice. But how about something along the lines of asking him to think about what he's doing, who he's doing it with, the time of the day, the circumstances in the community, etc?

Now, he's 19 years old, and if you feel you've fulfilled your duties as a positive role model, so be it. He's an adult now. But when my sons are that age I hope I'm still willing to educate them about using a little common sense.

And then there's the GROW UP speech. Maybe telling him that the world is a semi-bad place with lots of bad people and in order for the police to find some of the bad people before they do bad things, the cops are going to have to scratch around a bit. And sometimes during the scratching, good people will be temporarily inconvenienced in a minor way in order to provide order for the greater good.

Roering
08-22-2011, 11:46
That's certainly good and accurate advice. But how about something along the lines of asking him to think about what he's doing, who he's doing it with, the time of the day, the circumstances in the community, etc?

Now, he's 19 years old, and if you feel you've fulfilled your duties as a positive role model, so be it. He's an adult now. But when my sons are that age I hope I'm still willing to educate them about using a little common sense.

And then there's the GROW UP speech. Maybe telling him that the world is a semi-bad place with lots of bad people and in order for the police to find some of the bad people before they do bad things, the cops are going to have to scratch around a bit. And sometimes during the scratching, good people will be temporarily inconvenienced in a minor way in order to provide order for the greater good.

Now see, here is where your assumptions about him run amuck. He fully understands that he was out at a time and place that would draw attention from police, he knows that getting checked out is a matter of the police being proactive and a part of their patrol, he knows that the circumstances of being out at that time during a blackout is cause for him getting stopped. I never said it wasn't, he never said it wasn't, you just assumed so.

His use of common sense was to let the police do what they needed to do in order to satisfy their suspicion. I'd say that was good common sense. The question was what are the potential scenarios if he were to deny the request to consent to a search. And further, him understanding that he is 19, how best to deny an officer's request without giving the impression of being difficult or giving off attitude.

PuroMexicano
08-22-2011, 11:54
"Officer, I don't want to give you an attitude or for you to have the impression that I'm being difficult, but I'd like to exercise my right not to be searched"
"Do you have something to hide, boy?"
"No, sir, I just want to exercise that right."

If he has "probably cause" (inner joke), he will search him, if not he may call a K-9 or let him go.
Something along those lines is the response he can give the officer without looking like a smartass, or maybe he can just consent to the search and be done (as he did).

volsbear
08-22-2011, 12:05
Now see, here is where your assumptions about him run amuck. He fully understands that he was out at a time and place that would draw attention from police, he knows that getting checked out is a matter of the police being proactive and a part of their patrol, he knows that the circumstances of being out at that time during a blackout is cause for him getting stopped. I never said it wasn't, he never said it wasn't, you just assumed so.

His use of common sense was to let the police do what they needed to do in order to satisfy their suspicion. I'd say that was good common sense. The question was what are the potential scenarios if he were to deny the request to consent to a search. And further, him understanding that he is 19, how best to deny an officer's request without giving the impression of being difficult or giving off attitude.

And see, this reads differently to me than did your original post where you discussed your son's distrust of the police. If he complied with the request to search because he...

fully understands that he was out at a time and place that would draw attention from police, he knows that getting checked out is a matter of the police being proactive and a part of their patrol, he knows that the circumstances of being out at that time during a blackout is cause for him getting stopped.

... then he did NOT consent to the search simply because of the two big scary men with guns.

Furthermore, if...

His use of common sense was to let the police do what they needed to do in order to satisfy their suspicion.

... then he was not so afraid of the police that he questioned whether or not they would do something malicious or inappropriate.

In short, sir, I'm beginning to think that this encounter may have ruffled YOUR feathers moreso than your son's. Of course, we don't know which of your assertions is true. Did your son comply because of the big scary men with guns, or because he "fully understands" the need for the police to poke around in the middle of the night?

We don't know this, and judging from the contradictions you have posed in this thread, neither do YOU.

TheGreatGonzo
08-22-2011, 12:10
Roering,
I am a LEO and I have, in the past, very respectfully refused a State Trooper consent to search my private vehicle. His reaction, while not exactly thrilled, was also not hostile or combative. He did not like it, but he knew that I knew my right and that was the end of it. No ticket issued, by the way.

My wife (also a LEO) and I have always advised our daughter (now 22 years old) to be very respectful to LEOs and to NEVER, EVER try and win an argument with a Police Officer on the side of the road. That being said, we have also always advised her to respectfully refuse consent to have her vehicle searched if she is ever asked on a traffic stop. We told her that if she refused (politely but firmly) and she felt bullied to give consent, or the vehicle was then searched without her consent, to remain respectful and not to argue, just to be very attentive to details and to write notes about what happened immediately following the traffic stop. That situation could be dealt with down the road in court.

Our daughter, despite a lead foot that has cost her a couple of speeding tickets (Mom and Dad don't "fix" speeding tickets), is a decent, law abiding kids and, to my knowledge, would never have anything in her vehicle that would get her in trouble. But we also expect her to be aware of, and to stand up for, her Constitutional rights. We believe she is perfectly capable of doing that while still being cooperative and respectful to our fellow LEOs. So far, it has worked quite well for her.
Gonzo

msu_grad_121
08-22-2011, 12:11
Every time I've had PC to search, I don't ask for consent. That seems to be where you're having problems understanding what is being said. The "bad old days" of an officer asking for consent to search you and then saying "well I'm just gonna do it anyway for X reason" are over. These days, officers are just taught to search if you have PC, because consent must be freely given, and how freely can it be given if someone is intimidated and/or in handcuffs?

Furthermore, refusing consent isn't an arrestable offense, so I don't know why you keep saying that it would make a bad situation worse, or that he'd end up getting locked up simply for saying that he does not consent to a search.

To be honest, this thread never should have gone this long. You received many good answers in the first several posts, and yet here we are, going over and over the same issues and questions. It certainly feels like you haven't yet gotten the answer you want (like someone agreeing that the cops were lying jerks who never should have done what they did), so you won't let this thing die already.

Straight Pipe
08-22-2011, 16:42
I heard that a lot of Ranchers had to send a lot of their cattle to processing due to lack of grazing fields.

(Yes, I'll participate in your threadjack)

Sorry. I wasn't trying to jack it.

But by all means, keep the thread going and pay particular attention to what the LE say. As for me I'm prettty fed up with the bull-$#!+ attempts at trying to bate LE into an arguement.

Morris
08-22-2011, 21:13
I am a LEO and I have, in the past, very respectfully refused a State Trooper consent to search my private vehicle. His reaction, while not exactly thrilled, was also not hostile or combative. He did not like it, but he knew that I knew my right and that was the end of it. No ticket issued, by the way.

My wife (also a LEO) and I have always advised our daughter (now 22 years old) to be very respectful to LEOs and to NEVER, EVER try and win an argument with a Police Officer on the side of the road. That being said, we have also always advised her to respectfully refuse consent to have her vehicle searched if she is ever asked on a traffic stop. We told her that if she refused (politely but firmly) and she felt bullied to give consent, or the vehicle was then searched without her consent, to remain respectful and not to argue, just to be very attentive to details and to write notes about what happened immediately following the traffic stop. That situation could be dealt with down the road in court.

Our daughter, despite a lead foot that has cost her a couple of speeding tickets (Mom and Dad don't "fix" speeding tickets), is a decent, law abiding kids and, to my knowledge, would never have anything in her vehicle that would get her in trouble. But we also expect her to be aware of, and to stand up for, her Constitutional rights. We believe she is perfectly capable of doing that while still being cooperative and respectful to our fellow LEOs. So far, it has worked quite well for her.

All good. When asked, I explained to parents that while their kids may be good, kids have a reputation to pick up the occasional bad kid who may decide to sluff off the dope or rig in a car.

But it's all about the respect. You earn what you give, both ways.

TBO
01-19-2012, 20:32
Any followup/update?

Patchman
01-20-2012, 06:18
Make a long story short. Two weeks ago wife has fender bender with another car. Wife's fault. We've used the same insurance since 1990. In 1992 or so, went from $500 to $1000 deductable. As a result, our insurance preminums decreased by about 20 percent each year.

This is first accident for wife. Estimate was $1150 damages. Got a check for $150. So what does wife complain to me about?: "Why is our deductable so high!?!?"

Moral of my story? Sometimes people will focus on one thing and complain about that, to the exclusion of everything else. I keep that thought in the back of my mind when people tell me horror stories of their experiences with whomever. :dunno:

merlynusn
01-20-2012, 11:48
Make a long story short. Two weeks ago wife has fender bender with another car. Wife's fault. We've used the same insurance since 1990. In 1992 or so, went from $500 to $1000 deductable. As a result, our insurance preminums decreased by about 20 percent each year.

This is first accident for wife. Estimate was $1150 damages. Got a check for $150. So what does wife complain to me about?: "Why is our deductable so high!?!?"

Moral of my story? Sometimes people will focus on one thing and complain about that, to the exclusion of everything else. I keep that thought in the back of my mind when people tell me horror stories of their experiences with whomever. :dunno:

I'd have just paid the whole amount and not claimed it to the insurance. That way your rates won't rise. Not worth it for the $150 check you got.

LApm9
01-20-2012, 12:13
Brake lights were operational. After the police let them go they checked them out (one pushing on the brakes while the other stood in back to see if they lit up).

It was the reason given for the stop though.

So what lesson did the young man learn from this?

What will it take for the young man to "unlearn" this.

I'll bet that 99.9998% of the LEOs here on GT are top flight folks, but every LEO has to also be aware of the image he is creating.

As if your job isn't hard enough already, right?

Let's consider the implications of this small action. If this young man is placed on a jury and testimony is given that the LEO stopped the accused for a defective brake light, how will the young man regard the rest of the testimony?

When a sales tax increase comes up for increased police salaries and better equipment, how will he vote?

When the local PD is under fire for some alleged impropriety, what opinions will he voice to his friends?

Disclaimer: I have never had a bad experience with an LEO. Ever. The worst was neutral politeness.

smokeross
01-20-2012, 12:29
Brake lights were operational. After the police let them go they checked them out (one pushing on the brakes while the other stood in back to see if they lit up).

It was the reason given for the stop though.
My grand son and I were stopped while hunting for inoperative brake light, and even ticketed. Cop was a PITA. As soon as he drove away, we checked the brake lights. Yup, working. Still working 2 years later. I went to dispatch and discussed it with his superior. He stated that he had known officer X for a number of years and thought he was a 'pretty good guy'. I stated that I had known officer X about 20 minutes, and I had a much different opinion.:rofl:

smokeross
01-20-2012, 12:47
Were the boys suspected of causing the blackout?

Roering
01-20-2012, 14:25
Were the boys suspected of causing the blackout?

Hard to say. My guess is that they were suspected of breaking into homes & stealing during a blackout. The officers were probably looking for loot or tools.

smokeross
01-20-2012, 14:41
So what happens around there when the lights go out? The locals go on a looting, raping, pillaging rampage?
Here we just load up the wood stove, fire up a lantern or 2, and break out the playing cards and board games. No looting and such, ever.

steveksux
01-20-2012, 19:42
GnG

Randy

wayne
01-24-2012, 00:27
One thing I learned from this post was that quite a few of the poster's have problems with reading comprehension when it comes to the subject of the brake lights working or don't read all of the posts before they reply. The OP states the brake lights were working yet many posters after that fact kept bringing up the fact that the brake lights were not working and then we get a post about the brakes not working.

TBO
01-24-2012, 02:08
One thing I learned from this post was that quite a few of the poster's have problems with reading comprehension when it comes to the subject of the brake lights working or don't read all of the posts before they reply. The OP states the brake lights were working yet many posters after that fact kept bringing up the fact that the brake lights were not working and then we get a post about the brakes not working.
How we know the brake lights were working?

merlynusn
01-24-2012, 10:42
I've seen shorts in cars before where the brake lights work intermittently.

nikerret
01-24-2012, 12:05
I hope 7 examples are enough so some people can get the idea....

Stupid man.

Sorry... Not tracking.

Did your response go right over my head, or am I correctly taking it like I'm reading it (you're calling me stupid)?

I think he meant the OP :whistling:

I must have gotten confused, since he quoted me.

I believe it was intended as sarcasm - as in, "stupid" to think he'd get the point with only 7 examples. At least that's how I read it.

Of course, if he DID call you stupid, and we're both left wondering what he meant, then I guess it applies to both of us :tongueout:

At this point I guess I couldn't really refute it if he was addressing me... :whistling:

:faint:

:rofl: Damn, should have checked back in here. This is hilarious!!

I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm as in stupid man NORMAL people would get it after 7 tries but we are dealing with...........................something else

I believe it was intended as sarcasm - as in, "stupid" to think he'd get the point with only 7 examples. At least that's how I read it.


These^^

Morris
01-24-2012, 14:29
I've seen shorts in cars before where the brake lights work intermittently.

Had a patrol car that did that. It was like a strobe light in the taillight.