Discussion What do you think of this Police encounter?

[Maxima1]

Police income is based off national averages and cost of living, just like most occupations.

COL is a factor but private sector will pay you less if people with the qualifications want to live there more than the other area with lower COL but similar demand.

To buy a home in New York City, it takes an minimum income of $100k today. Now sure how making $90k qualifies as doing fine, if you can't even qualify to buy a house

What do you expect? It's a two income economy. This is how we get cops getting like $200K+ compensation packages in some more affluent areas.

As for pensions, that may be your experience, but it isn't mine. My brother who is now 56 has been able to retire for the past 10 years if he wanted to (Union Plumber) with his full pension. My job, which is also union, I can retire at 20 years with full pension. The only thing that increase the amount is the more years I put in beyond 20, not my age. I have family and friends who started collecting full pensions in their early 50's. Some are working on a second pension.

Almost nobody has pensions or is unionized in private sector and private sector pensions were not as good for several reasons. And even if everyone is unionized, do you know what would happen to the premium? It would go down to little to none depending on industry. Consider how Krugman laments that truckers are receiving a third less in compensation since 70s, yet hates UBI thinking it's too inflationary at $12K.

And the decline of unions has made a huge difference. Consider the case of trucking, which used to be a good job but now pays a third less than it did in the 1970s, with terrible working conditions. What made the difference? De-unionization was a big part of the story.

Are you calling sanctioned work thru the department as "side gigs" ?

Lol How can you support that shit? This is like padding pensions with overtime.

https://www.telegram.com/news/20180...rs-police-still-prevail-at-construction-sites

Or how they can substantially increase compensation through court appearances because they can get paid up hours more than they actually invested.

There are many government jobs that you can take your full pension after 20 years. Military is a great example. I have already told you that the police are not the only ones who have such pension programs.

Lol Military is a great example of overpaid for both enlisted and officer. Can you tell me why you think a career pharm tech in the military is worth a multiple more than civilian counterpart?

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/12/20/us-troops-may-be-overpaid-new-study-finds.html

But troops’ compensation has jumped beyond that 70th percentile mark for both officers and enlisted troops, according to RAND. Over the course of the 2000s, military pay relative to civilian pay "increased substantially," the report’s author wrote.

Now that enlisted troops are earning closer to 90% of what their civilian counterparts make, and officers about 83%, she says it's "raising the question of whether military pay is set too high relative to civilian pay."

Now get this, the 90th percentile, which is already retarded, doesn't include pension or subsidized health care after 20 years and the chance at the military lottery (i.e. getting a bogus "disability" payout once you leave).

You keep throwing out associates degree, which tells me you have been brain washed like many in this country that believe education level is what should determine income level. That is so wrong on so many levels, but it is one of the reason we have such an income inequality problem in this country.

Yeah, I agree. But employers outside of government don't really treat it as binary as that e.g. sales can make loads. But regarding education "level", rigor of program varies drastically between degrees with some being just memorize the powerpoint slides for the tests, do this for about 40 classes and obtain the degree. Seriously, why would an employer really care about that other than signaling as with IQ test? The need for a degree can push wages up simply by acting as a gatekeeping barrier due to the campus model and not seating enough (e.g. nursing). It's also pretty clear private sector doesn't value it as some sectors are gutted and pay zilch for degree (e.g. chemistry). And other examples include not caring about computer science degree i.e. can you actually code or not? Oh, and outside of internships, no one really cares about the GPA afterwards.

If you believe it's a sweet job, why are you not a cop? Every job has it's good points and it's bad points.. Police officers are no different.

What does one person deciding what to do prove? Being a cop takes a certain personality, and there are more than enough of those personalities applying for the jobs i.e. supply and demand.

 

[JEDIYoda]

i bet if we asked the average American if a job that only required an associate's degree and paid $90k before overtime was being paid well the vast majority would say yes.

You are correct! So lets also ask the average american if Police have the right to ruin other peoples lives and get away with it.....due to qualified immunity.....
6 months in school....given a badge and gun and a tazer and then allowed to ruin innocent peoples lives.......makes no sense!

 

[MrSquished]

Police making $90k equates to a police officer being able to support it's family on one income. If being able to support your family on one income is considered being paid well, so be it. But in reality it just shows how bad the income inequality is in this nation. Where the majority of the New Yorkers (same for the majority of the nations) are severely under paid.

I agree with you that as a whole people are very underpaid, and especially in high COL areas like NYC. I agree with that 110%

However, like most people making 90K that have a family and work in NYC, you live further out in one of the outer boroughs or live in LI, NJ, or CT and commute like everyone else does. That's the grind.

But yes, I do feel everyone deserves a raise, including cops - cops if they get better training and have real and consequential accountability though.

 

[JEDIYoda]

But yes, I do feel everyone deserves a raise, including cops - cops if they get better training and have real and consequential accountability though.

EXACTLY!!

 

[nOOky]

So... back on the original topic? Saw a funny truth today: "We have no problem forgiving highly trained officers of the law for making huge mistakes under pressure, yet we still expect untrained civilians to remain calm with a gun in their face".

 

[fskimospy]

So... back on the original topic? Saw a funny truth today: "We have no problem forgiving highly trained officers of the law for making huge mistakes under pressure, yet we still expect untrained civilians to remain calm with a gun in their face".

I think nearly the entire problem is the culture of impunity. If you’re a cop and you beat someone up what are the odds you’re going to be disciplined? Near zero. If you kill someone what are the odds you even get fired, much less prosecuted? Very low.

I think the real answer is in many ways much less extreme than people think. You don’t need to send tons of cops to prison, you just need to fire a lot more cops. Severely sanctioning a minority of police while letting the rest off the hook does very little.

 

[brycejones]

Is @railer ever going to specify how the driver was “race bating”?

 

[nOOky]

I think nearly the entire problem is the culture of impunity. If you’re a cop and you beat someone up what are the odds you’re going to be disciplined? Near zero. If you kill someone what are the odds you even get fired, much less prosecuted? Very low.

I think the real answer is in many ways much less extreme than people think. You don’t need to send tons of cops to prison, you just need to fire a lot more cops. Severely sanctioning a minority of police while letting the rest off the hook does very little.

Yes. Even soldiers can't indiscriminately go off and kill people in time of war. If there is no recourse for one's actions of course erring on the side of your own interests will rule the day.

And when your profession is being a cop which is perceived as being some sort of a hero by the average citizen, it's doubly hard to convince people that they are doing wrong when they "just want to go home at the end of their shift". And there is some truth to that fact, and no one will deny it's a shitty job dealing with the dregs of society and by default given almost certain immunity. But there has to be accountability, especially given what seems to be prevalent lately with all of the shoot first and ask questions later incidents happening.

 

[HomerJS]

Fucking police. Soldiers temporary tags were in his back winshield as required by law yet he isn't owed an apology?? Fuck them, increase the suit to 5 million and contact the DOJ for civil rights violations.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-apology-owed-pepper-spraying-001005315.html

 

[Aikouka]

Fucking police. Soldiers temporary tags were in his back winshield as required by law yet he isn't owed an apology?? Fuck them, increase the suit to 5 million and contact the DOJ for civil rights violations.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-apology-owed-pepper-spraying-001005315.html

The article talks about apologizing for the use of pepper spray. He wasn't sprayed because they thought he didn't have proper tags for the vehicle. He was sprayed because he wouldn't comply.

Although, I think they should apologize for what appeared to be continually spraying him for no reason. Albeit, the camera angle doesn't show the result of the previous spray, so I can't be sure if prior spray attempts appeared ineffective or missed, but I'm assuming they kept spraying him. That's about the equivalent of kicking someone when they're already down.

 

[ewdotson]

Fucking police. Soldiers temporary tags were in his back winshield as required by law yet he isn't owed an apology?? Fuck them, increase the suit to 5 million and contact the DOJ for civil rights violations.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-apology-owed-pepper-spraying-001005315.html

From the article, "There were things that led up to that traffic stop, there were certain actions that Mr. Nazario took that raised red flags for those officers based on their training".

It will never occur to them that that's exactly the problem, will it? That it's not that anyone's saying the police in question were uniquely flawed but that it's the training itself that's problematic?

 

[fskimospy]

From the article, "There were things that led up to that traffic stop, there were certain actions that Mr. Nazario took that raised red flags for those officers based on their training".

It will never occur to them that that's exactly the problem, will it? That it's not that anyone's saying the police in question were uniquely flawed but that it's the training itself that's problematic?

Also, how does them doing nothing wrong comport with one of them already being fired?

 

[Aikouka]

From the article, "There were things that led up to that traffic stop, there were certain actions that Mr. Nazario took that raised red flags for those officers based on their training".

It will never occur to them that that's exactly the problem, will it? That it's not that anyone's saying the police in question were uniquely flawed but that it's the training itself that's problematic?

That would depend entirely upon what the so-called red flags were to which they reacted. The flagrant issue that I saw was the repeated spraying of the driver (as noted earlier, I can't tell if any sprays before the last were successful), but the driver also screwed up by refusing the exit the vehicle. Even the article tries to paint the driver as flawless in this altercation, which is just ludicrous:

In response, Army Lt. Caron Nazario's legal team said Windsor Police Department Chief Rodney D. Riddle "continues a false narrative" of the case and blaming their client for initiating it. They said the video of the stop "shows otherwise" that their client was nothing but compliant.

I mean... did I see the wrong video? I'm trying to be fair and place blame where blame belongs, and I can't ignore the driver's actions.

Oh, and I almost forgot how the one officer was also verbally escalating the situation without cause. The conversation went something like ... "I feel like I'm in danger" "You're going to be!". Yeah... I have a feeling he's the one who got fired, and I think he deserves it. (I think that was also the same one that did the spraying?)

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That would depend entirely upon what the so-called red flags were to which they reacted. The flagrant issue that I saw was the repeated spraying of the driver (as noted earlier, I can't tell if any sprays before the last were successful), but the driver also screwed up by refusing the exit the vehicle. Even the article tries to paint the driver as flawless in this altercation, which is just ludicrous:



I mean... did I see the wrong video? I'm trying to be fair and place blame where blame belongs, and I can't ignore the driver's actions.

Oh, and I almost forgot how the one officer was also verbally escalating the situation without cause. The conversation went something like ... "I feel like I'm in danger" "You're going to be!". Yeah... I have a feeling he's the one who got fired, and I think he deserves it. (I think that was also the same one that did the spraying?)

So here's my problem with how events like this take place. Cop pulls you over, you don't know why. He walks up to the window, tells you to exit the vehicle, you ask 'why?', that calls for immediate escalation on the part of the officer, which never gets de-escalated from that point forward, likely until you're in cuffs. Now this is where my brain starts asking questions, such as does the authority of the police extend to complete control over my personal agency? Do I not have permission to ask 'why' without immediate compliance, and is it to be assumed that if I do exert control over my own life, that I am automatically a criminal? Is control over oneself considered a crime if exerting it makes you a criminal in the eyes of the enforcer?

To be clear, I do not think that a law-abiding citizen should ever have an obligation to follow the instructions of law enforcement if it is not clear why they should do so. If the building they are in is on fire, there's an obvious reason as to why you should follow the instructions of law enforcement. If an officer knocks a can off a trash bin and tells me to pick it up, I'm not liable to follow that instruction, as I still presume myself to be a Free Man.

 

[nOOky]

So here's my problem with how events like this take place. Cop pulls you over, you don't know why. He walks up to the window, tells you to exit the vehicle, you ask 'why?', that calls for immediate escalation on the part of the officer, which never gets de-escalated from that point forward, likely until you're in cuffs. Now this is where my brain starts asking questions, such as does the authority of the police extend to complete control over my personal agency? Do I not have permission to ask 'why' without immediate compliance, and is it to be assumed that if I do exert control over my own life, that I am automatically a criminal? Is control over oneself considered a crime if exerting it makes you a criminal in the eyes of the enforcer?

To be clear, I do not think that a law-abiding citizen should ever have an obligation to follow the instructions of law enforcement if it is not clear why they should do so. If the building they are in is on fire, there's an obvious reason as to why you should follow the instructions of law enforcement. If an officer knocks a can off a trash bin and tells me to pick it up, I'm not liable to follow that instruction, as I still presume myself to be a Free Man.

FYI:

Stopped by Police

Being stopped by police is a stressful experience that can go bad quickly. Here we describe what the law requires and also offer strategies for handling police encounters. We want to be clear: The burden of de-escalation does not fall on private citizens — it falls on police officers. However...

www.aclu.org

 

[Aikouka]

So here's my problem with how events like this take place. Cop pulls you over, you don't know why. He walks up to the window, tells you to exit the vehicle, you ask 'why?', that calls for immediate escalation on the part of the officer, which never gets de-escalated from that point forward, likely until you're in cuffs. Now this is where my brain starts asking questions, such as does the authority of the police extend to complete control over my personal agency? Do I not have permission to ask 'why' without immediate compliance, and is it to be assumed that if I do exert control over my own life, that I am automatically a criminal? Is control over oneself considered a crime if exerting it makes you a criminal in the eyes of the enforcer?

To be clear, I do not think that a law-abiding citizen should ever have an obligation to follow the instructions of law enforcement if it is not clear why they should do so. If the building they are in is on fire, there's an obvious reason as to why you should follow the instructions of law enforcement. If an officer knocks a can off a trash bin and tells me to pick it up, I'm not liable to follow that instruction, as I still presume myself to be a Free Man.

I think it comes down to the normalcy of the request. I don't know if being asked to get out of your car during a traffic stop is entirely common, but I don't think it's abnormal. As such, I don't know if that request is necessarily one that you should try to ignore. To be clear, I don't think there's a problem with asking why the officers are engaging you, but perhaps if he would have exited the vehicle while also inquiring, this would have gone differently. Albeit, I think you could easily argue that the officers could have been more forthcoming with their reasoning too... especially if it was just "where are your tags?". I know there was the whole complaint about him driving too far to stop at the gas station, but I'd figure that cops would prefer to not stop on the side of the road. Getting away from fast-moving traffic seems far more safe for everyone.

 

[fskimospy]

I think it comes down to the normalcy of the request. I don't know if being asked to get out of your car during a traffic stop is entirely common, but I don't think it's abnormal. As such, I don't know if that request is necessarily one that you should try to ignore. To be clear, I don't think there's a problem with asking why the officers are engaging you, but perhaps if he would have exited the vehicle while also inquiring, this would have gone differently. Albeit, I think you could easily argue that the officers could have been more forthcoming with their reasoning too... especially if it was just "where are your tags?". I know there was the whole complaint about him driving too far to stop at the gas station, but I'd figure that cops would prefer to not stop on the side of the road. Getting away from fast-moving traffic seems far more safe for everyone.

Also the complaint about him driving too far to the gas station is irrelevant as it is his right under Virginia law. It’s like saying you escalated the situation by asking to see a warrant before the police search your house.

 

[ewdotson]

I think it comes down to the normalcy of the request. I don't know if being asked to get out of your car during a traffic stop is entirely common, but I don't think it's abnormal. As such, I don't know if that request is necessarily one that you should try to ignore. To be clear, I don't think there's a problem with asking why the officers are engaging you, but perhaps if he would have exited the vehicle while also inquiring, this would have gone differently. Albeit, I think you could easily argue that the officers could have been more forthcoming with their reasoning too... especially if it was just "where are your tags?". I know there was the whole complaint about him driving too far to stop at the gas station, but I'd figure that cops would prefer to not stop on the side of the road. Getting away from fast-moving traffic seems far more safe for everyone.

They were *also* screaming at him to keep his hands outside the windows while they pointed their guns at him. Given his door was locked and his seatbelt was on, it was literally impossible for him to comply with both orders. Granted he was (justifiably) afraid and this may not have been a calculated decision, but if one has to choose which mutually contradictory order one is going to comply with, going with the one less likely to misconstrued as reaching for a weapon seems like a reasonable choice.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think it comes down to the normalcy of the request. I don't know if being asked to get out of your car during a traffic stop is entirely common, but I don't think it's abnormal. As such, I don't know if that request is necessarily one that you should try to ignore. To be clear, I don't think there's a problem with asking why the officers are engaging you, but perhaps if he would have exited the vehicle while also inquiring, this would have gone differently. Albeit, I think you could easily argue that the officers could have been more forthcoming with their reasoning too... especially if it was just "where are your tags?". I know there was the whole complaint about him driving too far to stop at the gas station, but I'd figure that cops would prefer to not stop on the side of the road. Getting away from fast-moving traffic seems far more safe for everyone.

A human asking me to do something I don't want to do, then either shooting me or spraying me with pepper spray if I don't do it is abnormal. Law enforcement is only applicable if a law is being broken or enforced, and if you don't tell me what that is, I cannot determine if it's a legitimate request. If you're stating that I should comply regardless as to whether I understand the purpose of the request, that goes right back to me having no agency over my life, and living in a totalitarian society (which may or may not be accurate). Yes, they should absolutely be forthcoming with their purpose, and it's not fucking hard, you walk up, if ununiformed you state that you are an officer, and then state why you're performing a lawful contact. Then suddenly everyone can act like an adult.

I have a question for you, why do you consider it normal to be detained (even temporarily) by an armed citizen, and forced to comply with all commands, regardless as to whether or not you know why?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

FYI:

Stopped by Police

Being stopped by police is a stressful experience that can go bad quickly. Here we describe what the law requires and also offer strategies for handling police encounters. We want to be clear: The burden of de-escalation does not fall on private citizens — it falls on police officers. However...

www.aclu.org

Yep, fully familiar with all of those. Notice how in the 'if you've been pulled over' section, it doesn't say 'follow all requests from the police officer, regardless whether or not you understand why', or 'be sure to use this flow chart when police give you conflicting orders to avoid being shot'.

 

[HomerJS]

The article talks about apologizing for the use of pepper spray. He wasn't sprayed because they thought he didn't have proper tags for the vehicle. He was sprayed because he wouldn't comply.

Although, I think they should apologize for what appeared to be continually spraying him for no reason. Albeit, the camera angle doesn't show the result of the previous spray, so I can't be sure if prior spray attempts appeared ineffective or missed, but I'm assuming they kept spraying him. That's about the equivalent of kicking someone when they're already down.

If the cops had done their job in the first place he wouldn't have been pulled over at all

 

[Aikouka]

Also the complaint about him driving too far to the gas station is irrelevant as it is his right under Virginia law. It’s like saying you escalated the situation by asking to see a warrant before the police search your house.

Don't get me wrong as I don't see an issue with it as long as it was close enough. I mean... I'd likely do the same thing.

They were *also* screaming at him to keep his hands outside the windows while they pointed their guns at him. Given his door was locked and his seatbelt was on, it was literally impossible for him to comply with both orders. Granted he was (justifiably) afraid and this may not have been a calculated decision, but if one has to choose which mutually contradictory order one is going to comply with, going with the one less likely to misconstrued as reaching for a weapon seems like a reasonable choice.

Did he state that he couldn't get out due to needing to unbuckle himself and unlock the door? I just recall hearing him ask "Why?" even when he had his hands outside of the window.

A human asking me to do something I don't want to do, then either shooting me or spraying me with pepper spray if I don't do it is abnormal.

This is... a very awkward opening. It seems like you're trying to make some weird, reductive argument that just doesn't really make sense given what we're talking about. First of all, I never discussed the normalcy of the result of noncompliance. I simply suggested to consider the normalcy of the request, which in this case, was being asked to exit your vehicle during a traffic stop. On a personal note, I do not consider that to be abnormal, but given that is really more of an opinion, it could be that you (and maybe others) do. Second of all, I think it's important to keep in mind that the "human" in question is an official figure of authority. It becomes very reductive to simply generalize that to "human", which does not inherently have a position of authority over the average citizen.

Law enforcement is only applicable if a law is being broken or enforced, and if you don't tell me what that is, I cannot determine if it's a legitimate request. If you're stating that I should comply regardless as to whether I understand the purpose of the request, that goes right back to me having no agency over my life, and living in a totalitarian society (which may or may not be accurate). Yes, they should absolutely be forthcoming with their purpose, and it's not fucking hard, you walk up, if ununiformed you state that you are an officer, and then state why you're performing a lawful contact. Then suddenly everyone can act like an adult.

Your response here just seems... almost overly dramatic? You keep choosing to make everything so generalized that I can't properly respond to you because you aren't properly responding to me.

I have a question for you, why do you consider it normal to be detained (even temporarily) by an armed citizen, and forced to comply with all commands, regardless as to whether or not you know why?

Similar to above, I think you're overly generalizing here, and I can't really respond with much more than "I didn't suggest any of that."

If the cops had done their job in the first place he wouldn't have been pulled over at all

Has there been any information as to why they didn't think the car was properly registered? I know it was nighttime, so I don't know if that played a hand in it (i.e. harder to see the paper tag). Although, to be fair, even if that was the case, by the time they stopped him and were parked behind him, there's very little reason why they shouldn't have seen it under the gas station's pavilion lights.

 

[mect]

Did he state that he couldn't get out due to needing to unbuckle himself and unlock the door? I just recall hearing him ask "Why?" even when he had his hands outside of the window.

This might be a more relevant question if the police officers didn't initiate the encounter with guns drawn and pointed at the driver while aggressively yelling at him. The driver did absolutely nothing to warrant that kind of an initial response. Once you're at that point, I'm sure the driver was having a very hard time thinking clearly, and obviously the primary thought pushing everything else out was survival. His main objective was clearly to keep his hands where police could see them. I mean, can you imagine if this was the standard procedure for police pulling someone over with improper tags on a car? Don't you think that level of response by police is completely insane?

 

[zzyzxroad]

I think it comes down to the normalcy of the request. I don't know if being asked to get out of your car during a traffic stop is entirely common, but I don't think it's abnormal. As such, I don't know if that request is necessarily one that you should try to ignore. To be clear, I don't think there's a problem with asking why the officers are engaging you, but perhaps if he would have exited the vehicle while also inquiring, this would have gone differently. Albeit, I think you could easily argue that the officers could have been more forthcoming with their reasoning too... especially if it was just "where are your tags?". I know there was the whole complaint about him driving too far to stop at the gas station, but I'd figure that cops would prefer to not stop on the side of the road. Getting away from fast-moving traffic seems far more safe for everyone.

You realize his door was locked so he would have had to reach into the car to unlock it? Would you do that with a gun pointed at your head by a guy who told you you were about to be executed?

In the US, cops don't get to command citizens to do things without cause . Officer Joe Gutierrez was clearly way out of line. Thankfully he has been fired and hopefully never gets another job in law enforcement.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Your response here just seems... almost overly dramatic? You keep choosing to make everything so generalized that I can't properly respond to you because you aren't properly responding to me.

Interesting, I consider pepper spraying someone who was asking why you wanted them out of a vehicle to be overly dramatic.