Police question -- Police asking for ID in VA
- Thread starter Partisan Ranger
- Start date
- Status
I guess you're right. How dare we expect to have common courtesy extended to us while doing our jobs and risking our lives to keep our communities safe. I'm sorry to see that you have such utter distrust of your fellow man that you cannot stand to see another human being have any decision making power to cut someone a break or not.
As a non drinker, I don't have any problem, in principle, with sobriety checkpoints during certain known high drunk driving periods. The prevention of death and destruction caused by drunk drivers offsets any minor inconvenience IMO. That said, sobriety checkpoints don't involve showing any ID (at least the ones I've been through).
I was a little anxious a few weeks back going through a sobriety checkpoint while returning from the range. Had several firearms and at least 1000 rounds of ammo in the extra cab part of the pickup. Fortunately, the windows are tinted and the cop didn't see any of them when he stuck his face into the cab (presumably to smell alcohol). I might have had some 'splainin' to do.
However, I'm not sure what is accomplished in terms of crime 'prevention' by checkpoints to examine ID. Maybe some resident LEO or DA could explain it?
I was a little anxious a few weeks back going through a sobriety checkpoint while returning from the range. Had several firearms and at least 1000 rounds of ammo in the extra cab part of the pickup. Fortunately, the windows are tinted and the cop didn't see any of them when he stuck his face into the cab (presumably to smell alcohol). I might have had some 'splainin' to do.
However, I'm not sure what is accomplished in terms of crime 'prevention' by checkpoints to examine ID. Maybe some resident LEO or DA could explain it?
Lone_Gunman
Member
Kevin,
If I was stopped by you at a checkpoint, would there be a way for me to express my unhappiness with being stopped unnecessarily without you interpreting it as me trying to give you a hard time?
If so, what words should I use to do that.
As to the question you posed about surgery, the difference in my decision to operate versus someone elses would not be based on whether or not the patient pissed me off.
As for your comment that I am not listening, I most certainly am. I am very interested in what you have to say. I find it very interesting that every police office in every precinct does things exactly the way you do. Not only is that degree of consistency impressive, but I am also impressed that you would know this information. Just curious, how do you know it?
Do you think that saying "everyone else is doing it too" is actually going to convince anyone?
I do not mean to disrespect you or your profession. We need police officers who will enforce the law uniformly.
If I was stopped by you at a checkpoint, would there be a way for me to express my unhappiness with being stopped unnecessarily without you interpreting it as me trying to give you a hard time?
If so, what words should I use to do that.
As to the question you posed about surgery, the difference in my decision to operate versus someone elses would not be based on whether or not the patient pissed me off.
As for your comment that I am not listening, I most certainly am. I am very interested in what you have to say. I find it very interesting that every police office in every precinct does things exactly the way you do. Not only is that degree of consistency impressive, but I am also impressed that you would know this information. Just curious, how do you know it?
Do you think that saying "everyone else is doing it too" is actually going to convince anyone?
I do not mean to disrespect you or your profession. We need police officers who will enforce the law uniformly.
What is the point of you expressing your unhappiness about the checkpoint to me? Do you really think that I made the decision to have the checkpoint? Or that I feel like standing out in the freezing cold or blazing heat in the middle of the road anymore than you want to slow down from your journey? You complaining to me would be about the same as complaining to the guy at the window of the DMV about how much your registration fees are.
It is the same principal in both cases. You use your professional opinion to evaluate whether a person is physically capable of having a surgery. I use my professional opinion to evaluate whether a person is someone who deserves a break or get a ticket.
Would you rather me stop and write everyone a ticket for driving 1 mile an hour over the speed limit? Or would you say that I was being a jerk and it was totally unneccessary? Everyday good people make plenty of mistakes and even have stuff wrong that they don't even know about. What purpose does it serve to give all of them tickets? Other people, however, are constant problems and are basically jerks to put it bluntly. It doesn't matter what I say or do though because it will never please everyone and I will always be wrong as has been proved in this thread.
lostone1413
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 447
The way the country is going with the police state we are turning into and what are goverment is doin This sums up my feelings to a tee!"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending
too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of
it." --Thomas Jefferson
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin
Franklin
too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of
it." --Thomas Jefferson
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin
Franklin
"If I was stopped by you at a checkpoint, would there be a way for me to express my unhappiness with being stopped unnecessarily without you interpreting it as me trying to give you a hard time?"
No, peon.
You're only to present your ID in the most obsequious manner possible and avert your eyes like a good little serf.
No, peon.
You're only to present your ID in the most obsequious manner possible and avert your eyes like a good little serf.
Lone_Gunman
Member
You are the one imposing on me at the time. It is unpleasant for me to be subjected to an unnecessary stop. If you make me unpleasant, I have no problem making you unpleasant. You obviously agree with this concept, as you base your decision to ticket people on it.
If I express my concern to you that random stops make me unhappy, then maybe if you are in a leadership position you might be more open to the idea of stopping this kind of unnecessary intrusion.
I agree there are people higher in the chain of command that need to hear about it too, but they are not with you at the stop.
If all police officers across the nation could be convinced that random road blocks are unconstitutional and morally wrong, what do you think would happen? Do you think the govt would fire all the police officers? Or do you think random road blocks would cease to exist?
If it serves no purpose to give them all tickets, then it serves no purpose to give any of them tickets. Selective enforcement of the law is wrong.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Could this possibly indicate that there are too many petty laws on the books?
C'mon! Is it really any of the State's business how I decorate my rear view mirror?
(and people wonder why some of us think the government has become too intrusive)It certainly is! It was (and still is) revolutionary, profound, and astonishing. It became the basis for most of the political thought of the 19th century. A number of foreign countries have duplicated these ideals in their own governments.
As for enforcing common law, the state constitutions generally provide for the prosecution and punishments of crime. "Crime" should be interpretted as any action that injures another, or impedes another's liberty.
This is correct, in theory if not in current practice. The government does not have the authority to deny me whatever medical treatment I might decide I need. The fact that the government does in fact deny medical treatments to people does not make such denial proper or just.
Consider this:
About 8 years ago, my uncle was dying of bone cancer. None of the conventional treatments were effective. Our research turned up a new, experimental procedure which showed promise in curing his particular cancer. However, the FDA hadn't yet approved this treatment, and my uncle was denied this potential cure under the gorunds that it might be dangerous to him. The cure couldn't posibly have been more dangerous than his terminal cancer was, but the FDA didn't seem to care. He died within months of being denied this treatment.
That treatment has since been approved by the FDA, and is currently used with some success to save lives. My uncle might still be alive if not for the government's intrusion into his medical treatment.
Oh, by the way, anyone foolish enough to allow you to perform a lobotomy on them deserves whatever consequenses ensue. It is YOUR job to look out for your own welfare, not the government's. The government does NOT exist to save you from your own stupidity.
Model520Fan
Member
Dbl0Kevin,
I find your patience remarkable. I would have gotten nasty about half way through what you've put up with so far.
All,
I find it remarkable that anyone over the age of, say, eighteen has not caught on to the relation between the way we act towards others and the way they subsequently act towards us. Kevin made a non-threatening generous comment about that relationship and ended it with "A word to the wise." And I am sure that the wise among us duly noted his comment.
Of course, a policeman is properly held to a somewhat higher standard than others in his responses, but, as Kevin pointed out, he still has some discretion WITHIN the law that he just might exercise in the same way that ANY ONE of us would in the same situation.
As far as comparing him to a surgeon, let me just say that I have heard of a situation where a morally blind surgeon failed to distinguish between the necessity of treating a critically wounded policeman before treating the wounded felon who shot him. You can bet your bippy that TWO people were very fortunate that policemen were the ones who brought them in. They took their fellow-LEO to another hospital. I would have settled the issue right there.
BTW, I am not now nor have I ever been an LEO. Almost all of my encounters with police have been respectful both ways, and the two or three that weren't were no big thing.
I think that the issue of improper stops can be discussed without badmouthing cops in general. If you have an individual case, fine, but I think it ill behooves a persecuted minority (gunowners) to paint another group with a broad brush.
I find your patience remarkable. I would have gotten nasty about half way through what you've put up with so far.
All,
I find it remarkable that anyone over the age of, say, eighteen has not caught on to the relation between the way we act towards others and the way they subsequently act towards us. Kevin made a non-threatening generous comment about that relationship and ended it with "A word to the wise." And I am sure that the wise among us duly noted his comment.
Of course, a policeman is properly held to a somewhat higher standard than others in his responses, but, as Kevin pointed out, he still has some discretion WITHIN the law that he just might exercise in the same way that ANY ONE of us would in the same situation.
As far as comparing him to a surgeon, let me just say that I have heard of a situation where a morally blind surgeon failed to distinguish between the necessity of treating a critically wounded policeman before treating the wounded felon who shot him. You can bet your bippy that TWO people were very fortunate that policemen were the ones who brought them in. They took their fellow-LEO to another hospital. I would have settled the issue right there.
BTW, I am not now nor have I ever been an LEO. Almost all of my encounters with police have been respectful both ways, and the two or three that weren't were no big thing.
I think that the issue of improper stops can be discussed without badmouthing cops in general. If you have an individual case, fine, but I think it ill behooves a persecuted minority (gunowners) to paint another group with a broad brush.
Thank you 520fan I appreciate the kind words. It does get frustrating quickly when anything you say will be said to be wrong, but that is what I have to deal with a lot of times being a police officer. I try to keep my patience and always hope that by doing so someone, somewhere might stop and see things from another perspective. Doesn't happen very often though, sadly.
Libertyteeth
Member
Cops should be expected to use common sense and individual conscience, and also make an independent judgment regarding the constitutionality of the statute. (Of course, unconstitutional laws should be repealed, but until they are, everyone in authority should have some flexibility in enforcement, and they do, in practice.) In addition, there are always gray areas that cops have to deal with, besides the matters of conscience. Law enforcement has limited resources and always makes decisions about priorities. Prosecutors also traditionally have had discretion not to prosecute, grand juries can decline to prosecute, judges can dismiss cases before trial, and of course jurors have the right to vote according to conscience, even if the law has been technically violated.
An unconstitutional law is void. To take probably the best example, a Sheriff, who is the highest law enforecement officer in the county, who promises not to enforce unconstitutional laws, is someone I want to support.
"The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
— John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802
An unconstitutional law is void. To take probably the best example, a Sheriff, who is the highest law enforecement officer in the county, who promises not to enforce unconstitutional laws, is someone I want to support.
"The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
— John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802
cropcirclewalker
member
Mr. Werefolf here has hit a harmonious note. This bias thing.
Usta be they passed gun control laws knowing full well that they would be selectively enforced against minorities.
Now the worm has turned, the flaming liberal leos took the bit in their teeth and will lock up anybody for a gun control crime. It's not supposed to be US. It's supposed to be those minorities.
Best way to stamp out a criminal law is to enforce it even amongst the deserving people like US.
We need check points on every street, every mile and all hours of the day.
Let us see what .gov hath wrot under the guise of safety.
Usta be they passed gun control laws knowing full well that they would be selectively enforced against minorities.
Now the worm has turned, the flaming liberal leos took the bit in their teeth and will lock up anybody for a gun control crime. It's not supposed to be US. It's supposed to be those minorities.
Best way to stamp out a criminal law is to enforce it even amongst the deserving people like US.
We need check points on every street, every mile and all hours of the day.
Let us see what .gov hath wrot under the guise of safety.
Aguila Blanca
Member
The problem with this, Kevin, is that you are a law ENFORCEMENT officer. It's your JOB to issue citations or to make arrests when you see or are informed of infractions/violations. "Officer discretion" has, in fact, NO basis in law. Your JOB is to write up everything you see once you have cause to stop a vehicle. If the prosecutor wants to drop some of the charges or the judge wants to let some of them go with no penalty, that's part of the system.
"Officer discretion" is an illegal part of the system, and it leads to abuse of authority and favoritism.
If you disagree, show me where the laws of your state specifically allow for an LEO to intentionally ignore violations.
No the problem is you have no idea what you're talking about. Where did you get your police training again? Please tell me exactly how you are going to tell me what MY job is. Officer discretion is not an "illegal part of the system" it has been part of the system since the beginning of policing.
Laws were made for the express purpose of keeping order. If I can keep order without throwing the book at someone who might deserve a break then that is my job.
To enforce every law every time in every situation means you believe that the world is black and white and that is just not the case. You can't make blanket statements about everything as every situation is different and requires a different solution to have a positive outcome.
Do you honestly think that someone with a child who is choking to death and is speeding to the hospital deserves the same treatment as a punk kid who is just driving like an idiot because he thinks it's fun?
If you do then I won't bother discussing this with you because we have polar opposite points of view.
Gordon
Member
"a county sticker check (quick $$ for the locals for the tickets that get written for not displaying proof of paying tax)." Ain't this the bottom line for about 75% of "police work" :banghead: 
jefnvk
Member
So whaddya know? Maybe I should read his thing every once in a while
I am still of the opinion that the roads are the governent's, they have the right to control them. Don't like the roadblocks? Call your state senator. If enough people complain, maybe it'll get changed.
Big Gay Al
Member
:banghead:
thorn726
Member
there we go.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Kevin, I suspect the person you are referring to is a taxpayer, and taxpayers ultimately do decide how you do your job. I know you don't like that.
If enough voters got together, they could have you wear a clown suit and carry a squirt gun while on duty.
I think many police officers have lost sight of the fact that they work for us. Every power you have is granted by the people you are supposed to be serving, and they have every right to tell you how to do your job.
GE-Mini-Gun
Member
I've lived in the Winchester area for over 30 years, nothing new. You will come across them towards the end of the month more than anything. They are looking for dead inspection, plates, county stickers, licenses, no seat belts, kids out of car seats, etc. The thing that amazes me is they always seems to do it on the blind side of a hill or turn (county and state police) or if in Winchester the busiest road @1300 on a Saturday. I know a couple state troopers and a County deputy and they are amazed at the number of people they catch with the above mentioned items. Both of them have told me the inspection sticker is the most common.
Model520Fan
Member
GE-Mini-Gun said:
The end of the month? What kind of Gestapo is this? I think that means that most of the out-of-date stuff will be nearly a month out of date. No chance at all to nail some mouthy motorist for a sticker that expired yesterday.
Looks like a clear lack of bad attitude to me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
