Urban Trekker
Brown Belt
You're right, I don't. One thing I won't tolerate is being made a fool of. I'd much rather look like an a-hole than someone who got played.
What to do during a police encounter...
- Thread starter jks9199
- Start date
- Status
You're right, I don't. One thing I won't tolerate is being made a fool of. I'd much rather look like an a-hole than someone who got played.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Urban Trekker
Brown Belt
Not sure what this means, but I know that in other situations where I'm in a position of authority, I'm not going to allow my next move to be determined by whether or not I can win an argument with someone who is being insubordinate.
Unfortunately, for every viral video of a police officer committing an act of police brutality, there's also one recorded by some chump (sometimes, sovereign citizens) winning arguments with police officers and having them walking away with their tails between their legs. To me, this is why cops need to stop entertaining these arguments.
In both extremes - police brutality at one, walking away looking stupid at the other - it makes me lose confidence in our police forces.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
It's a visual metaphor.
This is genuinely interesting to me. Do you think that people are subordinate to a police officer? I don't. I think police officers are public servants, and are subordinate to the community in which they serve. And if they don't agree, they probably need to reconsider their vocation. Insubordination would be if a cop refuses to do something that their superior office directs them to do (presuming it's not a ULP under their collective bargaining agreement). But that is fundamentally a different relationship than between the cop and a member of the public they serve.
My opinion is that cops who are worried about winning arguments have already lost control of the situation, and if they walk away, that's probably a wise move on their part. The entire concept of winning or losing in that scenario is alarming to me, that a cop is worried about being made to look foolish, and would abuse their delegated authority because they feel embarrassed. Dude. Come on. You have to see how bonkers that is.
Urban Trekker
Brown Belt
The police officer is in a position of authority. So when people who are subject to that authority defy it, they're being insubordinate.
Bear in mind that I'm not a cop, have never been one, nor am I interested in ever being one. So I'm speaking purely hypothetical here.
So, hypothetically speaking, I'm not worried about winning an argument, because I would never engage them in one.
My wife actually has this problem with our oldest daughter, who is 15. I keep reminding my wife that our daughter is not elementary school age. While she may not have the life experience of an adult, a 15 year old is just as fully capable of rational thought as an adult is; which makes her capable of winning arguments with adults. So when my wife comes to me, angry about arguments she's had with our daughter, what do you think is the first thing I tell her? I never argue with my daughter, because I know that there's a chance I could lose. She either does what she's told, or there's going to be consequences; and it's not up for debate.
So let's talk about an example of a cop dealing with an apprehendee:
Cop pulls a suspect over. Suspect slightly cracks the window open. The cop tells the suspect to step out of the vehicle. The suspect decides to stay put and begins arguing with the cop.
Now that cop has two options:
1. Argue back with the suspect, and risk losing it and walking away looking stupid.
2. Ignore the suspects argument. Maybe tell the suspect one more time to step out of the vehicle. If the suspect continues to argue, the cop whips out the baton, smashes the window, opens the door, and drags the suspect out.
I'm not even completely sure if #2 is illegal. It might be (and I'll sure people who don't like cops will definitely say it is), or it might be perfectly legal. Or it might be legal, but equivalent to a McDonald's employee not putting too much or not enough secret sauce on the Big Macs.
I think it's legal (not sure), but #2 is the route I'm taking.
Last edited:
dvcochran
Grandmaster
You had me until scenario #2.
What I do not feel is being appreciated is the mental and situation awareness that takes place in the officer during a stop. There is a Lot that has to be processed.
First, there had to be a reason for the stop. Not necessarily an arrest or ticket event on it's own but it should usually contain some of the 'building blocks' for probable cause. The exception may be a courtesy stop which is perfectly legal.
You could think of it as writing a program. There are necessary steps that have to take place first to start the process. Then there are often levels of ambiguity that have to be navigated (such as the window cracked and not willing to step out) . However, there are still boundaries that have to be maintained to stay within legal parameters. For the average person, this is where things often are misunderstood.
Never would an officer jump to smashing the window based on the sequence of events you described. That is ripe for getting into all sorts of trouble.
What I do not feel is being appreciated is the mental and situation awareness that takes place in the officer during a stop. There is a Lot that has to be processed.
First, there had to be a reason for the stop. Not necessarily an arrest or ticket event on it's own but it should usually contain some of the 'building blocks' for probable cause. The exception may be a courtesy stop which is perfectly legal.
You could think of it as writing a program. There are necessary steps that have to take place first to start the process. Then there are often levels of ambiguity that have to be navigated (such as the window cracked and not willing to step out) . However, there are still boundaries that have to be maintained to stay within legal parameters. For the average person, this is where things often are misunderstood.
Never would an officer jump to smashing the window based on the sequence of events you described. That is ripe for getting into all sorts of trouble.
Urban Trekker
Brown Belt
Okay, I'm not sure if you're a police officer - maybe you are.
Bear in mind that I'm not, so I'm not speaking from full understanding of the procedures.
Maybe there are other things that need to happen before the cop can smash the window; I get that. But I also don't think that there's any circumstance where a cop's actions are determined by whether or not the cop wins the argument or gets stumped by a rhetorical question.
Sure, rather than walk away after losing the argument, the cop still could carry out a particular action that requires physical contact with the apprehendee, but I think that would look even worse. It would look like the cop is agreeing he would be wrong if he did it, and still did it anyway.
So if you aren't giving off any indicators that you are trafficking narcotics or illegal proceeds you would be given your license back and told to have a nice day. If you are giving off indicators they would continue to investigate.
In our state, seized narcotic assets can only be used to fund narcotics investigations. It is placed in a separate account from other revenue. It can not be used for other budget needs.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
in my opinion, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of delegated authority and public service. Public servants are entrusted to act on our behalf. They are granted authority by the communities they serve, and they work for us. We are accountable to the police only in those areas where they are delegated authority, but cops are subordinate to the community in which they serve.
I get that this may seem a little philosophical, but folks who don't understand this intuitively just flat out aren't temperamentally suited for the role. If you are a cop and don't feel as though you are a servant of the community, you're in the wrong job, and are part of the problem we're having with law enforcement now.
Urban Trekker
Brown Belt
Okay, maybe "defiant," "recalcitrant," or "non-compliant" would have been better words to use. Either way, the point is the same: obedience to authority.
So when you are stopped you have violated the law (misdemeanor traffic law). You are legally required to exit your vehicle if instructed to do so in most states. Refusal to do so violates resisting arrest statutes that allow the officer to take you into physical custody for that violation.
At some point, something has to give and police do have the authority to forcefully open your car to take you into custody if you continue to refuse to comply with their lawful order.
No. You are accused or suspected of violating the law. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental (perhaps the) principle of US law.
Urban Trekker
Brown Belt
FTR, again, I'm not a "Blue Lives Matter" type, you won't find a thin blue line sticker or flag on anything I own. As a matter of fact, I even followed Cop Block on facebook for a short amount of time.
And emphasis on short, because I find that most of the people that followed those pages weren't using their critical thinking skills. In my estimation, at least four-fifths of the people on the Cop Block pages have a problem with authority in their lives in general, not just with police.
I will admit that I hate being told what to do myself. But, at the same time, what allows me to keep that in check is the fact my desire for society to run as smoothly and efficiently as a well-oil machine is stronger than that dislike. We do that by working together and not making other people's lives difficult, particularly when it's futile to do so.
And emphasis on short, because I find that most of the people that followed those pages weren't using their critical thinking skills. In my estimation, at least four-fifths of the people on the Cop Block pages have a problem with authority in their lives in general, not just with police.
I will admit that I hate being told what to do myself. But, at the same time, what allows me to keep that in check is the fact my desire for society to run as smoothly and efficiently as a well-oil machine is stronger than that dislike. We do that by working together and not making other people's lives difficult, particularly when it's futile to do so.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Okay, I need a reality check here. This thread has gone bonkers. Am I the only one who sees that?
Okay, I think I see some common ground here. I am with you that we need to work together and not make other people's lives difficult. Everything you've mentioned so far paints the picture of cops who are small minded and insecure, willing to abuse their authority and who feels superior to the public they are hired to serve. That is a recipe for disaster.
Ok....but still there is probable cause to stop you and the law requires you to exit your vehicle if instructed to.
Urban Trekker
Brown Belt
Yes. Is the guy who's arguing with a police officer, before the officer is even able to finish a complete sentence, not working together with the officer? Is he or she not making the officer's life difficult for no reason?
In the majority of these videos I've seen, these apprehendee's actually would have been let go if they didn't feel the need to try to harass and humiliate the officer.
But why should the officer engage in the arguments, rather than skip the BS?
Bear in mind, this isn't just about "insecurity." Imagine walking through a department store, and seeing a small child cussing out their parents for not buying him a new toy; and the parents do nothing about it.
How do those parents look to you? Incompetent, right?
Same concept, but even worse, when you see a police officer in this situation with a suspect. And I say that this is worse because, ultimately, what happens within that family is no one else's business. But how are we expected to have confidence in a police officer when we see this happening?
Steve
Mostly Harmless
This is a false dichotomy. It's not one or the other. The scenario you're presenting is of a cop who is both thin skinned, argumentative, quick tempered, sensitive to any real or perceived slight, and prone to abusing their delegated authority... and who is also collaborative and interested in working together with the person they're detaining?
Look, maybe you don't see it, but I really think/hope you've somehow worked your way into an extreme position that is out of sync with what you really mean. Take a beat, think about what you really want to say and let's get this back into something reasonable. Because right now, this is some jackbooted, authoritarian stuff.
Okay. In my opinion, so what? I've seen a lot of videos where police have handled these situations really, really well. Some excellent examples of police handling open carry folks who were intentionally baiting them, and they did a great job of managing the situation. I guess it's possible that some might think the cops were humiliated. But if the cops keep their cool, don't over react or unnecessarily escalate the situation, I think they've done great. Whether it's a BLM protester, a person who's been pulled over, a far right 2nd amendment dude, or anything else, this is just part of the job.
Because it's intrinsic to the job.
It's entirely about insecurity. And dude, let's not get into parenting. My concerns about your parenting philosophy could be a thread all on its own.
For this thread, though, it's apples and oranges. A cop is dealing with a person in isolation... it's a discrete interaction. A parent has a years long parental relationship with the child. Also, a cop is dealing with an adult, while the parent is dealing with a child. I mean, it's just fundamentally different. Lastly, the nature of the relationship is fundamentally different. Cops' role and function in society is not parental in nature.
It's also possible the child has tourrette's, is mentally ill, autistic, or there is something else we can't know as a bystander in that moment.
And even if it's just a full on tantrum or whatever, the issues involved are probably not the same (though the root causes may be similar: insecurity, lack of emotional/communication tools, lack of self awareness, etc).
john_newman
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2020
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 17
That video was a bit funny and also informational as it had several learning aspects in it.
Urban Trekker
Brown Belt
No, I'm not. I'm painting the picture of a cop who's not going to allow himself to get suckered into whatever games the suspect is trying to play.
The point I was making in what you quoted is that they're making the officer's job difficult for no reason other than the fact that they don't like cops. Did you not say that you agree with what I said about living in a society where people work together and don't make each other's lives difficult?
Arguing with people who are legally obligated to obey your orders is intrinsic to the job? No, it's not.
I suppose you'd be less concerned if I allowed the inmates to run the asylum.
Let's keep things simple. I'm describing any relationship where one person is subject to the authority of another, and actions on the part of both parties that can affect other people's perceptions on whether or not the person in the position of authority is fit to occupy it.
This is one of the reasons I said that what goes on in that family is ultimately no one else's business. However, the point of bringing it was to discuss how it is perceived.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
If he's worried about losing an argument with a member of the public, he's already suckered. And just to be clear, cops interact with a lot of people, and they aren't all suspects. Even if they're rude. Being rude isn't a crime.
100%, and that goes for cops, too. What you're describing is not collaboration. It's unquestioning obedience. It's entirely one sided. Collaboration is inherently cooperative, and requires mutual respect... not just one sided. Do you really not see that?
Let me say it a different way. If you are telling me what to do and if I don't, you will beat me with your baton, that's not collaboration or "working together."
Now, it may be that we have different profiles in mind when we say the above statements. So, just for clarity, I'm still back on routine traffic stops, even up to protestors, open carry advocates, etc. We can talk about scenarios where cooperativeness on the part of a cop is inappropriate and could even be dangerous
Remember, we're not talking about obeying orders. We're talking about losing arguments and being made to look foolish. This all started when you said something about not letting someone challenge your authority by making you look foolish, forcing you to slink away with your tail between your legs... something along those lines.
Also, should note, there are circumstances where a member of the public is not obligated to obey an order by a cop, as the order is unlawful. Which gets more to the topic of this thread, as when and how to safely disobey an unlawful order is tricky business when you don't have a gun but the cop has one.
To be really honest, I'm glad that's not up to you, because I think you and I have very different opinions about who the inmates are in your analogy.
I think what you perceive says more about you than anyone else. That's true in general. We all react to snapshots by projecting a lot of context that comes from us.
I'm just really glad you're not a cop. Earlier, you readily agreed you lack the temperament for the role. I think we should have just stopped there. I'll just get off the crazy train now, though... a few stops late, but better than not at all.
- Status
Similar threads
