Perhaps some of the things we do in traffic enforcement have very little to do with safety. Stuff like: plate tab enforcement, window tinting checks, lights being out stops… Maybe we should just snap a pic of the license plate and send the person a fee.
Right. But, not everyone who should be arrested needs to be arrested immediately no matter the collateral or immediate damage.
The point is to limit situations where police use force. If a car speeds away instead of pulling over, they were going to do that regardless… A cop armed to the teeth wouldn’t change that. But an instance where someone pulls over and reaches for a phone… An armed cop has a greater change of shooting that driver than an unarmed cop.
Point is, there are many duties that PDs undertake which do do require them to be armed. Let’s separate those out and take the kinder/gentler side of the job off their plate. It’s a lot to have to flip the switch at a moment’s notice and always be ready… But have to handle the public with kiddie gloves too. Let’s limit that crossover.
Totally. That would happen if they ran. $1000 fine if they run (mailed to the address on record), $150 fine if they pull over.
Wasn’t Timothy McVeigh only caught because of a traffic stop?
Didnt he pull over?
@Californiagrown, you seem to have a lot of ideas for improving Police behavior. You must have a great deal of experience. Will your traffic officers be giving tickets to drivers, or will they be writing them to the owner/s of the vehicle(like a parking ticket)? If to drivers, that will require identifying them. What responsibility will these unarmed folks have in regards to wanted subjects, drunks, and reckless drivers? Will the state just say, “Meh, we’ll get ‘em next time?”
He did because he didn’t have the option of paying a little more to get away.
1 Like
Oddly the vast, vast majority of folks just pull over. Tickets would be written to the driver if they were pulled over, and to the license plate owner if they speed away.
For those that speed away, I’d say the traffic cop should call it in while pursuing until armed cops can join the chase. The unarmed cops will always have the option of calling for armed backup.
I don’t think he was pulling away from anybody in that yellow jalopy he was driving.
Why not just stop get rid of non-reckless traffic laws? The real answer to those so worried about police behavior is to start cutting laws; it’s not to create a bunch of victims-in-waiting.
1 Like
I’m not a criminal so I’m not afraid of the police.
We don’t know that.
Exactly. Or no insurance or registration.
But no one knows who they are pulling over. The liability alone doesn’t make it feasible.
No. It’s to protect criminals who do what criminals do: resist arrest, pull weapons, etc.
How often does that happen vs how often does someone who gets pulled over attack the police? You might make it safer for criminals but it will be more dangerous for those unarmed “cops.”
Isn’t that counterproductive? It will mean armed police only deal with the scum and never deal with the general public. That won’t create kinder cops.
And don’t get shot either.
Then how would would they pay for the programs that benefit the people they are supposedly saving?
1 Like
What a lot of these discussions boil down to is, do we prioritize police safety or citizen (and sometimes criminal) safety in police interactions? That’s kinda what it seems like to me anyways, to oversimplify things.
I agree with this.
I don’t have any sympathy for criminals. A seven year old girl was shot and killed in a fastfood drivethru in Chicago. Who shot her? The very same criminals who people are rioting over.
Is it worse for a cop to be shot doing their job, or a 22yr old with a crack pipe and pocket knife to be shot in the back running away from the cops? Signing up to be a cop should take away some of their right to self preservation shouldn’t it? The same way enlisting for an infantry combat role in the military would (though to a greater degree, sometimes). Or do you disagree?
What are you talking about? Disarming Infantry soldiers?
Which happens how often?
Which happens more often than the first scenario.
Obviously not. They have the same legal right to self defense as anyone else. Maybe if the criminals wanted to preserve their own lives they wouldn’t end up getting shot.
Cops are governed by civilian law; soldiers by the UCMJ.
I wasn’t asking about the law. I was asking about the ethics/ your morals. So you think police should have the same standard of self preservation while on duty that a normal citizen does in their private life? I don’t.
Whenever I bring this kind of discussion up, folks on here just want to recite current law. But we are discussing the validity of those laws and a changing view of police use of force. What the law currently says vs what we think it should say are two different things. I want to discuss the latter, personally.