- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 28,902
- Reaction score
- 15,562
Minneapolis pd, as well as other departments and jurisdictions have decided not to pull people over for various traffic violations. These include driving while suspended, expired registration, and other issues that do not constitute a threat to public safety. The reasons are two fold with the first being cited as a better use of resources. The second is because these stops disproportionately affect black motorists. This is in the wake of the shooting of the black motorist that led to charges of murder. This was the dunate Wright shooting where he was wanted on a gun charge and was shot by Kim porter, who mistook her gun for a taser. Wright fought with officers and climbed back in the car and tried to flee in the vehicle. All around bad shoot snd criminal, however, I would at voluntary or involuntary manslaughter at most because it was obviously an accident despite what some idiots say-she immediately said “oh my God, that was my gun.” This of course led to riots and protests.
Other areas like Virginia have also decided to not stop those breaking traffic laws.
Another approach is to completely take police out of traffic enforcement and instead use unarmed traffic enforcers like roving meter maids or traffic cameras to do the job of police. The reasoning? They claim that there are too many deadly interactions during traffic stops. Here are some leading pro and con opinions.
Police shouldn’t have any role in traffic enforcement
“Cities should transfer traffic enforcement to non-police. Those responsible for making sure traffic rules are followed should be unarmed and separate from criminal law enforcement and investigations.” — Anna Kurien, Appeal
Pretextual stops should be banned
“If state legislatures and police departments nationwide were to prohibit pretextual vehicle stops … police officers would be blocked from acting on some of their worst instincts. Banning pretextual stops would free officers to focus their attention on serious traffic safety violations or on stops based on more than a hunch of criminality — a better use of police resources.” — Neil Gros, New York Times
Ending enforcement of low-level traffic violations would be good for police-community relations
“It will have a big impact on poor people. It will have big impact on people who drive older cars, and it will have a very big impact on black and Hispanic drivers, because if they knew that they were only going to get pulled over for running through a stop sign or excessive speeding, they will feel much more confident that they could be treated fairly by their police.” — Political scientist Frank Baumgartner to North State Journal
Ending police traffic stops would leave dangerous criminals on the street
“Somewhere along the way to righteous demands for police reform, we have elected to toss the baby out with the bathwater. Proactive policing strategies, which were adopted more than three decades ago, have come under knee-jerk assault, though studies have provided evidence they can prevent or reduce crime.” — James Gagliano, CNN
There’s no reason for armed police officers to enforce minor traffic violations
“The fact that stops over minor motor vehicle infractions do sometimes lead to violence — against police officers and the people they pull over — presents yet another reason to resist putting police and drivers in direct contact over non-risky matters like expired licenses, a broken taillight, or an illegally hung air freshener.” — Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Reason
Police treat every traffic stop as a life-or-death situation
“It’s drilled into police that traffic stop ambushes are routine. They aren’t. They happen, but they’re vanishingly rare. … Those cases are of course tragic and awful. But drumming it into cops to see every stop as his or her potential last has real world consequences.” — Radley Balko, Washington Post
Unarmed traffic enforcers would face enormous danger
“Unarmed traffic officers work well in many other nations, where the people they stop likewise are unarmed. Here, though, there are more deadly weapons than there are people. That unfortunate fact is what puts so many armed police in the position of handling what ought to be administrative, social or health problems.” — Editorial, Los Angeles Times
Public safety stopped being the purpose behind traffic stops a long time ago
“We have cities and towns across the country using traffic stops in place of taxes, extracting money from people of color and from the poor, and using these stops to terrorize and kill black people. Is there some positive impact that could possibly outweigh this? Are our traffic stops saving lives that would otherwise be lost? Of course they’re not!” — Raphael Orlove, Jalopnik
Fewer police interactions means fewer police shootings
“The simplest way to reduce bad interactions between the police and the public is to reduce the number of interactions.” — Jeremy Pratt, Bangor Daily News
Cameras should handle the majority of traffic enforcement duties
“Speed and red light cameras are a proven, functional technology that make roads safer by slowing drivers down. They’re widely used in other countries and can also enforce parking restrictions like not blocking bus or bike lanes. They’re incredibly effective enforcers of the law. They never need coffee breaks, don’t let their friends or coworkers off easy, and certainly don’t discriminate based on the color of the driver’s skin.” — Aaron Gordon, Vice
Here is my opinion on this. I am actually mixed on this one. If pushed, I would say no, it’s too dangerous for the civilian traffic enforcers. But I think a combination of cameras and unarmed traffic enforcers could work in some situations while still allowing police to do traffic stops when they see a traffic violation-same as they do now. I believe most people would stop for the traffic squad, however, there are many that would not.
What I would see happening is that these units would stay the fuck out of the hood and would punish middle and upper class mostly-the least likely to flee or attack the enforcer. Traffic cams were the rage in the early 2000s, but met significant resistance in some areas. Personally, I see dirtbags fleeing from the traffic unit snd then claim a. their car was stolen and b. it wasn’t them driving and they lent the car to a friend whose name they won’t know-just a friend of a friend because, hey, who doesn’t lend their car to people they don’t know. We used to have an issue with “geeking” which is when a crackhead lends a dealer their car in exchange for drugs and when they don’t return the car after joyriding in it, they try to report it stolen.
So, warroom, are you in favor of taking police out of traffic stops?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/minneapolis-police-curb-stops-minor-traffic-violators-79442575
https://news.yahoo.com/it-is-time-to-take-the-police-out-of-traffic-stops-155835442.html
Other areas like Virginia have also decided to not stop those breaking traffic laws.
Another approach is to completely take police out of traffic enforcement and instead use unarmed traffic enforcers like roving meter maids or traffic cameras to do the job of police. The reasoning? They claim that there are too many deadly interactions during traffic stops. Here are some leading pro and con opinions.
Police shouldn’t have any role in traffic enforcement
“Cities should transfer traffic enforcement to non-police. Those responsible for making sure traffic rules are followed should be unarmed and separate from criminal law enforcement and investigations.” — Anna Kurien, Appeal
Pretextual stops should be banned
“If state legislatures and police departments nationwide were to prohibit pretextual vehicle stops … police officers would be blocked from acting on some of their worst instincts. Banning pretextual stops would free officers to focus their attention on serious traffic safety violations or on stops based on more than a hunch of criminality — a better use of police resources.” — Neil Gros, New York Times
Ending enforcement of low-level traffic violations would be good for police-community relations
“It will have a big impact on poor people. It will have big impact on people who drive older cars, and it will have a very big impact on black and Hispanic drivers, because if they knew that they were only going to get pulled over for running through a stop sign or excessive speeding, they will feel much more confident that they could be treated fairly by their police.” — Political scientist Frank Baumgartner to North State Journal
Ending police traffic stops would leave dangerous criminals on the street
“Somewhere along the way to righteous demands for police reform, we have elected to toss the baby out with the bathwater. Proactive policing strategies, which were adopted more than three decades ago, have come under knee-jerk assault, though studies have provided evidence they can prevent or reduce crime.” — James Gagliano, CNN
There’s no reason for armed police officers to enforce minor traffic violations
“The fact that stops over minor motor vehicle infractions do sometimes lead to violence — against police officers and the people they pull over — presents yet another reason to resist putting police and drivers in direct contact over non-risky matters like expired licenses, a broken taillight, or an illegally hung air freshener.” — Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Reason
Police treat every traffic stop as a life-or-death situation
“It’s drilled into police that traffic stop ambushes are routine. They aren’t. They happen, but they’re vanishingly rare. … Those cases are of course tragic and awful. But drumming it into cops to see every stop as his or her potential last has real world consequences.” — Radley Balko, Washington Post
Unarmed traffic enforcers would face enormous danger
“Unarmed traffic officers work well in many other nations, where the people they stop likewise are unarmed. Here, though, there are more deadly weapons than there are people. That unfortunate fact is what puts so many armed police in the position of handling what ought to be administrative, social or health problems.” — Editorial, Los Angeles Times
Public safety stopped being the purpose behind traffic stops a long time ago
“We have cities and towns across the country using traffic stops in place of taxes, extracting money from people of color and from the poor, and using these stops to terrorize and kill black people. Is there some positive impact that could possibly outweigh this? Are our traffic stops saving lives that would otherwise be lost? Of course they’re not!” — Raphael Orlove, Jalopnik
Fewer police interactions means fewer police shootings
“The simplest way to reduce bad interactions between the police and the public is to reduce the number of interactions.” — Jeremy Pratt, Bangor Daily News
Cameras should handle the majority of traffic enforcement duties
“Speed and red light cameras are a proven, functional technology that make roads safer by slowing drivers down. They’re widely used in other countries and can also enforce parking restrictions like not blocking bus or bike lanes. They’re incredibly effective enforcers of the law. They never need coffee breaks, don’t let their friends or coworkers off easy, and certainly don’t discriminate based on the color of the driver’s skin.” — Aaron Gordon, Vice
Here is my opinion on this. I am actually mixed on this one. If pushed, I would say no, it’s too dangerous for the civilian traffic enforcers. But I think a combination of cameras and unarmed traffic enforcers could work in some situations while still allowing police to do traffic stops when they see a traffic violation-same as they do now. I believe most people would stop for the traffic squad, however, there are many that would not.
What I would see happening is that these units would stay the fuck out of the hood and would punish middle and upper class mostly-the least likely to flee or attack the enforcer. Traffic cams were the rage in the early 2000s, but met significant resistance in some areas. Personally, I see dirtbags fleeing from the traffic unit snd then claim a. their car was stolen and b. it wasn’t them driving and they lent the car to a friend whose name they won’t know-just a friend of a friend because, hey, who doesn’t lend their car to people they don’t know. We used to have an issue with “geeking” which is when a crackhead lends a dealer their car in exchange for drugs and when they don’t return the car after joyriding in it, they try to report it stolen.
So, warroom, are you in favor of taking police out of traffic stops?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/minneapolis-police-curb-stops-minor-traffic-violators-79442575
https://news.yahoo.com/it-is-time-to-take-the-police-out-of-traffic-stops-155835442.html
