How Not to Respond to Getting A Speeding Ticket:
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
In Search of Jefferson's Moose
Sources on the Second Amendment
ContactJohn Elwood CategoriesSubscribeArchives
FeaturesStuff from usAcademic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates In Search of Jefferson's Moose Sources on the Second Amendment Blogroll |
This is also an example of why front wheel drive can sometimes be better than rear wheel drive. You can keep power on the pavement as you are teaching that cop a lesson. HA!
One mitigating thing, however, the driver did use his turn signal before he backed up.
Um, am I the only one who views these particular words as typical police officer arrogance? Look, if you don't like talking to drivers and hearing their excuses and their pleas and their reasons for speeding and their accusations (sometimes correct) that the ticket is in error, don't become a cop. But if the motorist wants to keep talking, don't give me your arrogant BS about the conversation being over. Walk away. "The conversation's over" is the way a parent talks to a disobedient child. And while many officers would like to think they have a parent-child relationship with the people they pull over, they don't.
Of course, this in no way justifies what the driver did next (an offense that I am sure he is paying for dearly).
That should save him about 5 minutes.
Oy.
That may or may not be correct. He may have been exceeding posted limits, but posted limits are often too slow.
Further, a police officer should not have to waste his time listening to "excuses" and "pleas," until the person pulled he pulled over is through. It makes sense for police officers to hear someone out, but there comes a point when any further discussion with the police officer is pointless and should be resolved by the judge.
I have never done police work, but I have done customer service escallation work (where the person is usually unreasonable and angry). One of the elements to successfully handling these situations is to take control over the conversation and to be fair. At the end, sometimes you have to say "I am hanging up now. I am sorry you are upset, but this is all I can do for you right now." A lot of this comes down to the idea that one should negotiate from a position of strength.
Thinking through this a little further, the policeman is in a different position from what I did in that there is a very real risk of physical danger from the angry person (as is shown here). I think that just walking away is an invitation for bad things to happen, so saying "I am done with this conversation" or "this conversation is over" seems appropriate.
The best part is how the driver sounds meek, with some fading "okays" -- and then just slams it in reverse and guns the pedal.
The problem is, policemen aren't entitled to that position. They are just citizens with badges and guns. They should never, ever, ever communicate that they are anything other than equals to their fellow citizens. Any other approach carries too much danger of police officers getting on a power trip, which is already way too common.
Again, if they don't have the patience to listen to excuses and explanations, there are plenty of other lines of work for them to be in.
Yes.
It's not about patience. It's about the scarcity of the officer's time. As a member of the public, I want police actually working to keep the roads safe rather than serving as some guy's shrink.
Again, I disagree.
It is not the police officer's job to resolve disputes about facts or law. That is the job of a judge. If the driver disagrees with the officer's view of the facts or the law, the officer is not obligated to stand on the side of the road for as long as it takes for one of them to change his mind.
Again, I believe it makes sense for the officer to listen to the driver for a reasonable amount of time rather than automatically telling everyone to "tell it to the judge." However, there very quickly comes a point when it is pointless to spend time arguing on the side of the road.
The pilot of my airplane is 'just a citizen' with a pilot license. That gives him powers--including police powers--that I as a passenger do not have.
Police are citizens, but they are also officers of the law, or as sometimes spelled out, 'Law Enforcement Officers'. What they have to say on the law is far more important that an ordinary citizen's opining, at least at the moment.
This cop gave the driver very clear and useful advice about where his opinion might hold more weight and be more usefully advanced. He did it politely. I would certainly not feel dissed, though perhaps I would remain frustrated that I couldn't fix the problem then and there.
I think you over-reached in dissing the cop.
Does anyone really think that the cop should stand there agreeing or arguing with a citizen for as long as that person wants to rant and rave at him?
He showed cool professionalism and patience, something I wish more police officers would do.
this is of course complete rubbish.
on a traffic stop, an officer is not on an "equal footing" (to use your words) with the driver of the vehicle.
fwiw, i've never gotten a single complaint from a traffic stop, but it is correct that one does (and must) operate from a "position of strength".
but it is not equal. you can demand the person stay in their car. they have no "say" in that. and YOU determine when the stop is over, not them. they can't just drive off because they think you are talking down to them.
your post shows a staggering lack of understanding of this dynamic.
of course officers should be polite (yet firm), and make reasonable effort to explain the reason for the stop, and/or for the citation. and imo, officers should not lecture people on their driving when they are writing a ticket, but they are not on an "equal footing". they are vested by law with the right to detain the person for a reasonable period of time, demand license, registration, etc. write a citation, order the person to exit the vehicle (given certain factors or at the outset of the stop), etc. etc.
this is hardly "equal".
and of course cops should not abuse that power, nor did this cop, but it is simply a lie to say that the cop and the citizen are "equals" on a traffic stop. the law disagrees with you.
chico is also correct that the cop is not obligated to stand there and discuss.debate the merits (or lack thereof) of the citation ad nauseum until the driver decides he's done. a reasonable explanation is fine, but the cop is not under obligation to stay there as long as the guy wants to argue with him.
Evidently you have never done any sort of work where you must routinely engage with unreasonable or angry people. There are a few things then that you are missing:
1) Taking control over the conversation and talking from a position of strength is very reassuring to the other person. This can diffuse a lot of problems.
2) Refusing to take control over the conversation usually leads to far worse problems because nothing unnerves people like having people who SHOULD be either helping or protecting them who are obviously unsure of themselves. I am willing to bet that if the officer let the guy argue with him forever, this would have been MORE likely to result malicious acts such as this.
3) A key point here is to be fair. Evidently this guy didn;t think the officer was being fair, but that is beyond the officer's responsibility. However, providing legitimate avenues of complaint probably would diffuse this further.
My view is that from the point where the recording started (can't comment on prior parts of the encounter), the officer was clearly doing everything right to diffuse the situation based on my experiences dealing with angry or unreasonable people. It is hard for me to think of anything more that could be done other than including a satisfaction survey with the speeding ticket ("Please tell us about your experience. We care. Mail it into the department....")
THe first time I ever had my bags searched by customs officers, they handed me a survey about my experience. I thought it was helpful.
i agree. we should hand out surveys. and a latte and a muffin, as well. it's the pacific NW after all.
How long was the cop there explaining this citation to the guy before saying, "this conversation is over?" I would, (maybe, possibly, just a little) agree with you if that was the first thing the officer said when the guy tried to explain. I don't get that feeling, I think the guy had already had said his fill, the cop had explained not only his side, but how the guy should take it up the chain of command. The guy wouldn't drop it.
Ask Whit, I'm not generally inclined to take the officer's side in disputes...I'm a defense attorney. It comes with the territory. But the officer was very calm and professional.
Just as an aside, in my original comment I was referring to the way the officer acted AFTER his car was backed over. But, I agree with everybody but Dilan that he was professional before too.
And what's with Dilan Esper? Must live someplace where cop's aren't really officials of the state, sworn to uphold laws and maintain the peace. Maybe just hired security guards?
How do you know it's the pacific Northwest???
As a member of the public I want police actually working to solve crime instead of handing out revenue-enhancing traffic citations.
Surveys make sense to the point where you might want to take a look at how people see your own behavior in a traffic stop. I don;t think they should be handed out all the time, but from time to time, survey times might be a good idea.
Once again, my main parallel here was having my bags searched by ICE officers when returning from another country.
It makes sense to the extent you want to see how successful certain officers are at diffusing anger and perhaps seeing what can be done to help those with more negative images improve. One might find very politically incorrect things too, that more fit officers might generally get better marks....
pintler is correct btw. the fact that the driver has the door open (and the cop has to tell the guy to close it etc.) is something he was the first to mention.
the cop does a pretty good job at the whole "verbal judo" thing. people can sit here and quibble about how THEY would like cops to speak to them (yawn), or how THEY would handle themselves, bla bla, but this cop was acting consistent with theory/practice, at least as far as verbal judo classes, and my experience tells me is the right way to do things.
handling a traffic stop is like questioning a witness (for you lawyers) . there is no one right way , and to some extent, it's a feeling out process and an involved process involving layer upon layer, decision trees, etc.
the main object is to efficiently complete the traffic stop, minimize risk of injury to officer and driver, and try to create a positive impression, as difficult as that is when writing somebody a cite.
the guy does a good job
ein, i don't have a problem with surveys, although i generally think it's a better idea not to give them out. iow, if people feel extra aggreived, or extra satisfied with an officer they can and will make the effort to contact the precinct to complain/praise. but i'm not categorically opposed to them.
generally speaking, dept's get a pretty good idea pretty quickly who has problems with "people skills" and who doesn't. it's a "where there's smoke there's fire thang".
if somebody works a busy district (where they make a lot of citizen contacts) and gets a complaint or two every year, that guy is probably doing a good job. some people will complain about anything, so you look at the RATE (per contact) as well as the nature of it.
when you have some guy who is a statistical anamoly, that tells you he is probably doing something wrong.
good, proactive dept.s, seek to identify these people/problems early, and to first try to take a corrective approach vs.a punitive approach.
but you have to take the area the officer works in (some demographics will complain about ANYTHING. we have one area that is full of rich bored obnoxious kids that will complain about ANYTHING. that district is famous for it), the type of people he deals with (a DUI car is going to deal with a lot of obnoxious drunks who often complain because they were so drunk they honestly think they were mistreated and later on when they see the video, they realize they weren't), and how busy he is.
but with the # of citizen contacts a busy officer makes, the problem children are pretty apparent pretty quickly.
First of all, I am going to agree with you and every other reasonable person that this police officer handled this situation very professionally.
But, I think I will disagree with you concerning your more abstract statement that a police officer is not equal to a citizen in the context of a traffic stop.
A police officer cannot arbitrarily extend the length of a traffic stop for his own benefit. He can only extend the stop, making it longer than necessary, to the extent that this is in furtherance of his duties.
That is, it would be improper for a police officer to say, I really do not like this particular individual. "I think I will sit her in my cruiser playing a game of sudoku, and only when I am finished will I let the citizen drive away. This guy is a real asshole and he deserves to wait."
I suppose the reason I don't view the police officer as more than equal is because all the actions of the police officer must be in furtherance of official duties, rather than as a matter of personal benefit or the arbitrary exercise of power. The police officer is not acting as his own agent for his own benefit (i.e. the power he exercises is not meant to be used primarily to advance his own interests except insofar as his actions benefit himself just as they benefit the public at large), but rather as an agent of the public.
All this aside, a police officer is allowed to exercise some discretion. But that exercise of discretion is not supposed to be for purely personal benefit. (It is proper to exercise your discretion to give a disrespectful citizen a ticket, when you were thinking of giving them a warning. But the reason should be because you are trying to teach them to respect the law, not for your own personal pleasure.)
Now, of course, in some practical sense, a citizen and police officer are not equal in terms of the discretion they are allowed to exercise in the context of a traffic stop. But, they still are "equal" because whatever extra discretion a police officer gets to exercise must be exercised in furtherance of his duties to the law and to the public, not for personal benefit.
Now, one might assert that police officers don't really have to behave this way. That it is very difficult to detect acts of discretion that are taken for personal benefit (i.e. giving a ticket because you find a particular person annoying, perhaps for a reason they have no control over, rather than to teach them respect for the law or to punish them for violating the law) and that police officers thus do exercise power from a position of inequality. But, I do not think that one can say that the possibility of improper behavior that puts someone at a disadvantage renders two people unequal.
Is a pedestrian walking in a crosswalk in front of car unequal to the driver, who with a small movement of his foot, could end the pedestrian's existence? I would assert no, because the driver can only do this by engaging in improper behavior. He does not have official sanction to end the life of the pedestrian. That the driver might in fact get away with this crime does not render the two unequal either, at least before the law. (Though, one might argue that the two are in fact unequal, in some very important respects. The pedestrian is likely not well position to do immediate harm to the driver, but the driver, on an impulse, could do immediate and serious harm to the pedestrian. But any action by the driver to harm the pedestrian with his car would be entirely improper, and he would be subject to punishment if caught. Thus, this practical inequality is not an inequality between the two before the law.)
A citizen and a police officer are in fact equal before the law in the context of a traffic stop. A citizen who gets a ticket and thus learns to respect the law actually benefits in the long run (even if they would resist punishment in the passion of the moment and in consideration of their own short-term interests) as they and their family members get to drive on streets which are rendered safer due to the diligent monitoring of police officers. Any exercise of discretion by a police officer is meant to be on behalf of the citizen that is being ticketed, the general public, and the officer himself, but then only in his capacity as a citizen.
They should never, ever, ever communicate that they are anything other than equals to their fellow citizens.
--is ludicrous. They're obviously not equals to their fellow citizens in the relevant sense. They are the citizens who get to write tickets, and are allowed to leave after writing the ticket. There's no reason to avoid communicating that.
it's pretty clear what i mean, and it's pretty clear that it's true.
simply put, one person has the authoritah' and one doesn't in terms of making the stop, detaining somebody, demanding ID, keeping the person in the car, and deciding when the stop is over.
under no reasonable definition of "equal" is that "equal"
but again, semantical wanks bore me
I agree that if identifying problem children is the extent of the goal, that surveys are the wrong tool. Surveys to identify underperformers are absolutely the wrong approach. However, you stated that you see one of the duties of a police officer being to at least try to create a positive impression when issuing a traffic ticket. Measuring that can be very difficult. I know in that escalation customer service work is similar (create a positive impression while telling unreasonable folks to go away).
What a survey period allows for a department to do (mostly regarding traffic stops) is determine who is particularly good at this element, or allowing the department to identify stops where things were well handled, where the recordings might be useful in this matter.
BTW, I was never rewarded or punished for my survey results. I would not suggest that this be a criteria for promotion, etc. And given the propensity for organizations to foul up good ideas, maybe it isn't the best idea. However, the practice, if properly applied, could be useful. However, it is better to keep crescent wrenches out of the nail department and screws out of the hammer department ;-)
The problem is traffic stops are perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be all about revenue generation. Nobody gets tickets for speeding in rush hour. You are more likely to get a ticket for going the same speed on a lazy Sunday afternoon with 5 other cars on the road because the cop can pick you out easier.
Could it be that the perception of revenue generation could heighten tensions?
Is what David said great, or is it boring, like what semantical (sic) wanks write?
note also: a semantical wank is the discussion
a semantical wanker is the person.
of course any further discussion of this would be a semantical wank/
that's way too meta for me.
hth
First, there is no such word as "semantical," or at least it is not found in my dictionary. The correct word, I believe, is "semantic."
What does "semantic" mean? Well, it means "relating to meaning or logic."
If discussions of meaning and logic are bothersome to you, that is fine, as long as you attend to them to the extent necessary to do your job. (i.e. Making sure you perform searches and seizures correctly so you don't screw things up for the DA's office, where the lawyers care about "meaning and logic" aka "semantics".)
The truth is, whether you like it or not, you are equal before the law to the citizen you give a ticket to. Whatever discretion you have is not meant to advance your interests, but rather the interests of the public for whom you act merely as an agent. If you have any more glorified conception of your position relative to the citizen, you are mistaken.
again, cops have the authority on a traffic stop to make a stop (and arrest you if you don't), demand license, insurance, etc., run names for warrants, keep people in the car, etc. etc.
that is not an equal footing.
i've already explained this to you, but you are interested in playing silly games.
booooooring.
Yes. What would you prefer he do? It's firm, not arrogant.
Look, if you don't like talking to drivers and hearing their excuses and their pleas and their reasons for speeding and their accusations (sometimes correct) that the ticket is in error, don't become a cop. But if the motorist wants to keep talking, don't give me your arrogant BS about the conversation being over. Walk away.
Ah. That sounds much more arrogant to me.
much more effective if prefaced by
{enter cartman mode}
screw you guys, i'm going home
{exeunt}
To add to the disagreement with you, I thought the officer behaved quite correctly. He had the individual in a nonconsensual stop, and the stop was over: He informed the individual of that fact, telling him that he could go, and walked away. Given that the individual then threatened the officer's safety (if not his life) by ramming his car into the officer, I find it pretty surprising that you criticize the officer in this situation.
Is your complaint that "this conversation is over" implies authority to make the driver stop talking, or that it implies a more general superiority going beyond the cop's authority to control the scene?
Somewhat OT, but I have a feeling the driver may have been elderly, or indicated something else (maybe extreme nervousness) to suggest he didn't back into the cop intentionally. The cop's tone of voice when telling him to turn off his car sounded a lot more like he was talking to someone who just lost control of his car than to someone who just tried to kill him, may still be trying, and may try again.
Police officers have the authority to do these things, but only on behalf of the public, not for their own private benefit.
As soon as a police officer asserts his authority for his own private benefit, instead of on behalf of the public, he has crossed an ethical line.
The bottom-line is that since a properly behaving police officer is acting on behalf of the public (including the person who is being stopped and ticketed) there is not inequality between the citizen and the police officer within the traffic stop.
I would say there was inequality if the police officer was something other than a tool of the public, and had authority to do these things on his own behalf. (I am going to stop that car, because that girl is pretty hot and I want her number... Now that would be inequality.)
Anyway, you might not like this "semantic" distinction, but I feel it is critically important. We don't tolerate police officers who take bribes from citizens here in the United States (while other countries sometimes look the other way) because we very much view the police officer as an agent of the public, not someone empowered to extract benefits on their own behalf, and in every respect equal to any other citizen. If you ask me, that point of view, rather than being some "semantical wankery" is crucial to the rule of law.
On this 17.5 hour trip, the vast majority of drivers were rational human beings. Speed limits varied from 55-70, with most drivers doing less than ten over the limits. No cops were pulling people over for that. They were being pulled over for doing 80+. Not surprisingly, the majority of the really bad drivers seemed to come from NJ. I figure there was a convocation of NJ
assholesdrivers somewhere in the Carolinas.It also seemed to be the height of RV migration season, with Iowa leading the flocks. A simple observation: No RV belongs in the left lane of an Interstate with a 70mph limit, especially if there are three lanes to choose from.
Where's a cop when you need one?
*FOUL LANGUAGE WARNING*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyHMbHHtArE&feature=related
"Are you detaining me officer, or am I free to go now?" Isn't that phrase supposed to have magical powers or something?
in all 3 i have worked, it isn't a crime. it's an infraction.
it's a perfectly reasonabvle question. and in the case of a traffic stop, you are being detained (until it's over), and aren't free to leave.
Well, speaking from the point of view of a professional (but not a specialist in semantics), I don't think semantics is boring at all. However, semantics is REALLY hard and you have to be REALLY smart to contribute to it.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=261022&src=9
(Scroll down to "We've seen the tape and we're still not sure how he did it.")
Better save this:
It's just a classic. Police may be public servants, but they aren't really our servants, so they can also walk away from thir fellow citizens when they are being idiots. Being an equal means that they don't have an obligation to take their shit. In many a jurisdiction this irrational drama queen would have ended up in jail sooner than he did, which of course would have been to his benefit.
Look, if you think you are entitled to waste an officer's time with your pleas and excuses, don't become a driver. Or perhaps we could give drivers a fixed amount of time to make their pleas and excuses, and those who exceed the limit would be subject to additional fines.
A problem here is that in many departments the task of "working traffic" is a rotated assignment. When an officer gets so efficient at it that he becomes "good at this element", citing infractions and handling collisions, etc., its about time for him/her to pass a promotion exam and move on or be rotated out to an assignment where those elements are usually more critically needed to resolve more "serious" misdemeanor and felony cases. So surveys are a tool, but only provide short-term data. They must be frequently repeated to be useful.
In my experience citizen complaints are much more efficient and effective. Best of all is an ethical and responsible training officer or field supervisor. They - acting in the department's and community's best interests - should be washing out up to 75% of the crappy officers many here have experienced before they finish probation. If something like that's not happening in your city, your department may have problems.
i first really learned about the discipline to "walk away" when i took martial arts, but it's a great skill to have.
now, there are many situations where you are not/cannot walk away (investigating a crime, etc.) but there are a surprising amount of situations where simply walking away is the best policy.
getting the last word in is not "winning", nor is the job about winning an argument (with an idiot). you CAN'T win an argument with an idiot. you just debase yourself, and the idiot will never get it.
you need to win the PHYSiCAL confrontations. you need to go home at night. you do not need to teach every moron a "lesson". morons are job security for pete's sake.
if you let the insulter piss you off, HE wins.
of course a biting sarcastic sense of humor, and a quick wit are a nice defense as well.
to quote my verbal judo instructor "when arrow of insult is aimed at head... move head"
that may be true in many dept's.
thankfully in my dept, those that work traffic are those that apply for and want to work traffic. and lord knows that is not me.
despite the conception in hollywood, etc. (at least where i work), a detective is not a promotion above (for example) a traffic cop. it's a different assignment. actually in many agencies, the traffic cops (who usually work motorcycles), get paid significantly more than a detectives (motorcycle gets hazardous duty pay in many agencies).
promotion exams are to become (where i work) for example: sgt's. that's when you stop being (usually) an investigator, a real cop, and start being an administrator. nothing wrong with that, but... it's a whole different ball o wax.
i've never worked in any agency where there is a "promotion exam" for detective, or undercover work, or where that is considered a "promotion".
which (imo) is how it should be.
don't get me wrong, you develop some nice skills working detectives, and you get (at least where i work) more opportunity to attend various training classes (although many specialized units have this perk as well).
I have the same sense. I am not a police officer, obviously, but if I were, I would not choose to work traffic if I could avoid it. A lot of people don't want to take responsibility when they screw up driving and want to take it out on the police officer doing his job.
By the way whit, since what is your assignment? Detective?
I did once see a magistrate, who didn't really want to do any trials that day, inform the defendant (who was disputing the ticket) that he (the magistrate) believed that speeding warranted jail time. Then he asked the defendant if he wanted to be tried that day, or if he preferred to exercise his right to not have the case heard by a mere magistrate, but instead to come back on another day and have his case heard by an actual judge. Guess which option the defendant picked!
Unless this is the Lake Woebegone PD, I'll take issue with that. The officer may have done an appropriate, lawful and guideline-compliant job, or even an admirably restrained job, but the minimum criteria for a "good" job should be somewhere above two totaled cars as a result.
The most absurd claim in some comments has been that the officer is no different than the citizen he has stopped. He may be no better than the citizen in our democracy but he is undeniably different. He is a public servant who is performing the most basic function of government - public safety. He isn't out there on some power trip, he's doing his job. That job makes you safer.
Have you not dealt with irrational people before? Sometimes, you just can't stop them from doing something crazy no matter how hard you try. From everything I can see, the officer did the absolute best possible job anyone could have done when confronted with an irrational asshole. That's a "good job" in my book.
This happened in Buffalo Grove, just northwest of Chicago, Illinois, on May 23, 2008. Police released the video.
Car in front was a Toyota Camry. Police officer was with Buffalo Grove Police Department. The driver was stopped doing 58 mph in a 35 mph zone, westbound on Dundee Road.
Police vehicle was a Ford Crown Victoria. The left rear wheel of the Camry went through the windshield of the police car and came as close as six inches from the cop's face. "Accident" location was reported as 555 West Dundee Road (Route 68) -- the address for the First Midwest Bank in Buffalo Grove.
The driver was a 70-year-old Niles, Illinois, resident. He was pulled over at 11:30 a.m. Police added a charge of reckless driving in addition to the speeding ticket. An ambulance was requested, but no injuries were reported.
Here's a transcript:
Dashcam transcript:
BUFFALO GROVE POLICE OFFICER: ... then you go to court
DRIVER: Right now, right now. [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
BUFFALO GROVE POLICE OFFICER: No. Everything you say is being recorded. Everything's being recorded. OK? I'm not required to show it ... normally I'd have you exit your vehicle...[UNINTELLIGIBLE] ... and put you at risk by doing that. That's what happened. Sir, the conversation's over. You can complain to the chief of police. That's not a problem. You can go to court and complain to the judge. That's not a problem. You simply were driving too fast. The conversation is over. I'd like you to close the door and go ahead and proceed on your own. That's the safest way to proceed, OK? Conversation's over.
DRIVER: OK. OK.
BUFFALO GROVE POLICE OFFICER: Have a better day. Be careful pulling out, OK?
[Driver car door closes. Police officer returns to his police car]
[Toyota Camry left turn signal activates]
[Toyota Camry reverse lights activate]
[Toyota Camry backs up over front of police car]
[Engine revving]
POLICE OFFICER ON RADIO TO NORTHWEST CENTRAL DISPATCH: Central (from) 4130 (police radio unit number)
[Dispatcher/Emergency Telecommunications Operator cannot be heard]
I need an ambulance ... I've just been involved in an accident ... [UNINTELLIGIBLE] 555 West Dundee (Road).
POLICE OFFICER TO DRIVER: Turn the car off. Turn the car off. Turn the car off ... Turn the car off!
DRIVER: The whole thing?
POLICE OFFICER: Turn the car off!
The "conversation is over" thing sounds passive-aggressive to me (I'd prefer "I have to end our conversation now, to resume my duties" or some such, but that's a tiny nit in a superb performance by the LEO.
What I'm curious about is the repeated gunning of the engine. Had he moved the transmission to a forward gear, to escape, or was he trying to continue the ramming?
We've all heard stories of people who try to back out of the garage, turn to look behind them, and then proceed to drive forward through the garage wall because they are in "drive" rather than reverse. This is the opposite.
The old dude made a mistake. He wasn't trying to kill anyone.
I thought this early, though I must admit, after I read of his age, it only cemented that possibility in my mind.
I'd have to know the driver's race before I can form an opinion.
And we have a winner!
OK. Cabbage has his answer.
He is white.
Louisiana is different in many other ways too....
However, it used to be the case that these were misdemeanors here in Washington (not sure when this changed), but eventually they were changed to infractions.
this is the case in many state. decriminalization of traffic infractions is so common that the states where things such as speeding is a crime, are now the exceptions.
decrim offers a # of benefits
1) decreases the standard of evidence (civil). the primary effect is that cops don't have to usually testify in traffic infractions. i don't write many, but in 20 yrs, i don't think i've testifed in more than 3. this is a huge cost savings, and also keeps cops on the street and out of court. you shouldn't need to prove speeding beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it's an infraction - you don't
2) in many states, such as my own, scope of investigation is limited in infraction stops vs. terry stops (the latter are for CRIMINAL offenses). this means we don't have as much latitude in seizure, search, etc. which is also a good thing.
you make the classic error of applying a results based, not a process based analysis in an individual case.
if you are a lawyer, you should be especially ashamed. you don't judge the quality of his actions by the result, since the result was ultimately not in his hands. it was in the other driver's hands. patrol procedures, like constitutional, require a process analysis, not a results analysis.
you can handle an incident very very well and the guy can still do something (or chance can occur) that effects a negative result. contrarily, you can do a very bad job, but still have a good result.
results based analysis works ok in the aggregate. iow, if an officer has made a few hundred traffic stops, then you can take the overall stats about how they ended, how many ended in complaints, fights, etc. and come to a conclusion
but any individual incident is subject to the vagaries of individual variance in behavior (psychology is an art, not a science)
this is very shoddy thinking on your part, imo.
You can see front and side views of the collison here.
Most people -- at least, most non-minorities -- do not generally have an adversarial role with the police. But when driving, they do. Police are there to catch you, not to protect you. And since everyone violates the traffic rules, they can arbitrarily do so.
2. This kind of gets at my point even though the commenter disagrees with me:
The "conversation is over" thing sounds passive-aggressive to me (I'd prefer "I have to end our conversation now, to resume my duties" or some such, but that's a tiny nit in a superb performance by the LEO.
It is passive-aggressive. That's the problem with it. And indeed, whit, a cop (and from what we know, a good one) confirms the point I am making. These guys think that along with their badge and their gun comes an exemption from the equal protection clause and Kantian notions of equal citizenship.
I would suggest that we would have a lot less problems with police brutality in this country if we pounded it in to police officers that they are equals to the citizens they stop, nothing more, over and over again and let them know that anyone who believes or acts otherwise isn't going to remain a cop for very long. As it stands now, too many cops are schoolyard bullies.
As for the constant revving, it does seem to suggest agitation, so I'm not arguing with others who think that it shows malice. But for me, reasonable doubt would be some information from the officer of the state of the driver after the accident. The video cuts off before ones gets the sense of whether the driver was momentarily shocked by the events. Also, once it happened, what would be your first thought (assuming innocence)? Turn off the car or drive back off the car?
Best analogy would be people who drive into their house when meaning to drive out of their garage.
But that's all in the question of malice. The driver still caused the accident and was a danger to himself and others.
I agree with your last sentence, although I'm not sure I have a practical suggestion for improvement given the power of the unions. That said, I still don't see this officer's behavior as flawed in the slightest. IMHE, good police officers are highly results oriented. As an example, I was once talking to a Seattle officer. She mentioned that she was 'bilingual', and she didn't mean a foreign language. Her example was that she goes to a domestic disturbance in the upscale part of town. She would issue instructions like 'Sir, I will listen to your side in a moment, but in the meantime please go sit on the couch'. In other demographic areas, the phrasing might be 'Shut the #$%^&* up and sit the $^%^&&** down on the couch NOW!'. She didn't do this because she was afraid the yuppies would complain where the blue collar folks wouldn't - she chose the language because experience had taught her that those phrasings got the result she wanted. If you used the yuppie dialect south of the tracks, the gentleman didn't go set on the couch. If you told the yuppie to 'set $%^%^&* down' it just made him angrier.
Her phrasing was that she had 'had to learn' the second dialect to be effective, and everything about her demeanor suggested to me that she would prefer the first, but she would use whatever was effective.
In college, I worked e.g. minimum wage construction laborer jobs. It's a different world. Good people, and some very smart people, but you just don't interact the way you do in academia.
Fortunately, the Framers didn't saddle us with Kantian notions of anything. But even on Kantian grounds, the officer's abrupt ending of the conversation was a charitable way to prevent the driver from further debasing himself by claiming some sort of exemption from the law (to which he owes absolute obedience by virtue of its universality). Indeed, I would suggest that we would have a lot fewer problems (though certainly no problems) if respect for the law were pounded into the heads of
citizenspersons instead of trying to find excuses for disobedience.There is precedent for this line of defense: "I'm old, I get confused!"
I recall a case from the '90s that's on point. Was it State of New York v. Uncle Leo?
which at one point was falsely attributed to mechanical issues... audi iirc.
pj orourke has a great essay on this
You called the officer's performance subjectively "good" based on incomplete information. I allowed that his performance may have been normatively positive. The only facts we have are a few seconds of one side of the dialog and the resulting crash. I bow to your brilliance.
i called it "good" based upon a frigging videotape of it (and noted that several sites even have a printed transcript of what he said). his statements, attitude, etc. were professional and consistent with standard practice and "verbal judo" techniques for traffic stops.
you, 0t0h made the snarky and unsupportable statement that since the RESULT of the incident was two smashed cars, that the officer's CONDUCT was not "good".
as i said, that's the result of shoddy thinking based on a results based analysis.
i stand by my analysis. it's "good" but it's not brilliant, but i appreciate the props.
..Out here in California, Reckless Driving is defined as willful and wanton behaviour. If this old duffer made a mistake, as it appears he did, and wasn't practising his Joey Chitwood routine, his actions weren't willful or wanton. The most the old guy would have been charged with here is unsafe backing, and probably not that. Who cares about a $220 fine when you've just ruined $10,000 of car ?
Likewise, citizens should not have to listen to a lecture from a cop about how they should be "nicer" to them, when they have been pulled over for no reason, not given a ticket or even given a reason why they were pulled over besides "I don't think you would have stopped, if I hadn't been there". Well, no officer, I would not have stopped turning right into a lane in a parking lot if no one was there. Is that wrong?
But that cop didn't seem like an asshole, and he actually had reason.
Respect for the law and respect for individual police officers are two different things, based on two different sets of considerations.
..Out here in California, Reckless Driving is defined as willful and wanton behaviour. If this old duffer made a mistake, as it appears he did, and wasn't practising his Joey Chitwood routine, his actions weren't willful or wanton. The most the old guy would have been charged with here is unsafe backing, and probably not that. Who cares about a $220 fine when you've just ruined $10,000 of car ?
On this part of the tape, I'm much more of a stalwart defender of the police. Whether or not that action was reckless driving, it was clearly an assault with a deadly weapon and might even have been attempted murder.
Assault on a police officer is rightfully a very serious crime that should result in strong and effective sanctions. Don't let any of my comments about policework or what this officer did during the stop in any way diminish that.
..Listen to the officers voice AFTER the duffer's parking problem. He's calm because he didn't think he was assaulted. Traffic stops shake folks up. Some folks get very flustered. Many screw up their re-entry into traffic and some have to sit in their cars for some time before they can get a handle on their emotions. 32 years on the CHP ( '71-02 ) taught me this. This is just what it appears to be, an old man being an old man.
That's not the standard. Deliberately driving a car at significant speed into an occupied vehicle certainly can be ADW, as long as injuring the occupant is a natural and probable result of the act.
I am not sure why you use the cutesy language in addressing me, but the officer's arrogant conduct and the driver's subsequent assault are two separate issues.
You just make yourself look silly and petty by adopting an uncivil tone. Make your argument and let it speak for itself. And if you have any uncertainties about this, read the Comment Policy (below).
The engine RPMs run up to the red line and then the computer cuts the ignition (either by not running the fuel injectors or spark ignition, not sure what the usual method is, both I'd guess) until the RPMs come back down to a safe level. It will then accelerate again.
The officer seems to understand what is happening, and is telling the guy to turn the car off so the engine will shut down.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.