Charges dropped against mom who left child in car

Freemage wrote:

rwilymz:
1: At the time I was being pulled over, I was a 'common criminal'--I had broken the law, and it was appropriate for the officer to treat me that way.

No, in fact you were not. You were in violation of an ordinance -- a misdemeanor....unless you were undertaking a very select set of extreme actions, in which case you'd have been hauled off and your car impounded.

And since you failed to relate that part of the story I'm going to assume it didn't happen.

But the reality is: traffic law infractions are NOT violations of criminal law, and treating the people stopped for same as if they were and without cause for that treatment rubs a great many people the wrong way just out of principle.

And it is exactly that presumption of grave criminality which is the issue that I'm trying to get through to you folks: it is presumptive, it is insulting, it is offensive.

Why does this seem to be so difficult to understand?

I also think, however, that you're being too dismissive of Mutual Respect's point that many of the advantages provided by the current set-up would be lost if we simply rolled back the clock.

Since those points were not the issue, to be anything other than "dismissive" would be to allow the discussion to be sidetracked into an endless series of tangents which would Strawman the points ***I*** raised into oblivion.

That will not happen.

I've already said -- three separate times, if I'm not mistaken -- that the "response time" and "carting equipment" things are valid points in and of themselves, but they are being used as convenient rationalizations for dismissing the legitimate issues that citizens have with the police departments which "serve" them.

To refuse to address that, anyone who calls himself "mutual respect" is utterly failing to show any -- which is N-th degree irony -- and someone who wishes to chastise me for petulance and arrogance but who cannot even give me the courtesy of accurately rendering what I've had to say is being pretty ironic his own self.

3: Your sneering, aggressive posts simply make you look petulant and arrogant, and likely obscure the value that might actually be derived from your good points; a pity, that.

Well, lookit: I made statements of rather cold, clinical fact. You wanted to quibble. Deppity Fife wanted to try pulling rank.

Neither are likely to work well, frankly.

In case it has escaped your attention, we live in a nation which has, over the last generation, embarked on a rapid technocratic program of official snoopery into private lives. All in the name of "safety" and/or "security". And that's not to even mention all the various bossy-britches who are setting down rules of comportment in the name of "enlightenment" and "diversity".

It is hardly "sneering" to remind people of yet another aspect of the same phenomenon, and one which honestly preceded the currently popular critiques of "police statism"; any "aggressiveness" used in refusing to be derailed from this point is entirely warranted in the face of the rank-pulling weenie who wanted to endlessly rationalize and toss red herrings.

So if you don't mind, I'll substitute "accurate" for your assertion of "petulant", and I'll replace "and I know it" for your declaration of "arrogant" -- for that seems to be the crux of the matter here.

rwilymz wrote:

<quoted text>
Whether you "deserve" tickets or not is not the issue.
The statement I made, which you are going out of your way to disagree with, consisted of several independent assertions, none of which are inaccurate:
1] The average citizens' most common interaction with police officers occurs in traffic stops. This is absolute truth, substantiated by a few decades' worth of research, often done by police agencies themselves.
2] Many citizens' FIRST interaction with police officers occurs in traffic stops.
3] Sometimes a citizen's ONLY interaction with police officers comes during traffic stops.
Simply put: American citizens do not, as a whole, trust police officers, and the manner in which police officers move around America are largely to blame for it. In other words: they are creating that distrust themselves.
The last individual assertion I made is:
4] during traffic stops they treat you as common criminals. If you seriously wish to dispute this,'freemage', then I'd suggest that the next time you get pulled over for for failure to properly signal a lane change that you get out of your car and meet the cop at his car window and see what he does.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with how polite he is, or whether he calls you "sir" [or "ma'am", depending], or exchanges idle chit-chat about the weather, the NCAA finals or anything else. You are being treated as a common criminal, considered guilty of planning to assault him unless you sit in you seat, move only when he wants you to move and only in ways he finds acceptable, and slowly to boot.
None of what I said is incorrect. I'm forced to conclude that you are being confused by superficial politeness.

Wow, thanks for speaking for American citizens "as a whole" and for asserting as "not incorrect" your hypothesis that all police officers who would stop me for a traffic violation will treat me as a common criminal, "planning to assault him," etc. etc.

Fact: I am among the millions that have been stopped by the police in traffic.(Recently, too. Also in my case, incidentally, it was because I did indeed violate a traffic law.) Fact: The police officer did not treat me as if I were a common criminal. He did not threaten or intimidate me in any manner, nor did I feel that my movements were being unreasonably restricted. Now, I didn't get out of my car, but why would I do that, as the officer had come over to me? So, how are you to gainsay me about how that officer treated me? Perhaps police officers are **prepared** that the motorist they stop might be dangerous -- actually, I would hope that they are so prepared -- but there is a difference between what a police officer is prepared to do and how he actually treats the motorist once the encounter begins.

You would have more credibility if you spoke in terms of your own experience and stay away from sweeping blanket statements. And especially if you didn't presume to tell others that they must be "confused" if their own experiences are incompatible with your own "not incorrect" world view.

Don't look now, guys, but on the front page of the online Trib at this very moment are two articles which discuss public outrage over police heavy-handedness in dealing with the public at large:
1] dealing with an episode of a Chicago man "tazed" to death in Ohio
2] dealing with the fairly substantial public displeasure of the manner in which the city of Chicago is planning on collecting toll fines.

And that isn't even including the grossly misplaced [in my opinion] denunciations of the way in which area police "murdered" the cougar last week.

A population which trusts police doesn't show around a 60% disapproval rating for them killing a wild animal known to attack people, which is cornered outside a daycare full of children. I'm sorry; that simply doesn't get close to passing the sniff test.

I'm left to conclude that you are both either willfully ignorant or selectively blind.

captain obvious wrote:

Wow, thanks for speaking for American citizens "as a whole"

I made no such claims. You are now freely inventing what you need to invent for the purpose of working up a good pout.

Not on my time.

for asserting as "not incorrect" your hypothesis that all police officers who would stop me for a traffic violation will treat me as a common criminal, "planning to assault him," etc. etc.

1] it's not "my" hypothesis. If you'd have bothered to read instead of simply flinging yourself to the ground and kick your feet you'd have learned that;
2] if you seriously wish to dispute that a cop will treat you as a common criminal in the face of a misdemeanor offense, try getting out of your car and approaching him to ask what's wrong.

You would have more credibility if you spoke in terms of your own experience and stay away from sweeping blanket statements.

No. I would have more credibility if I did exactly what I did: stayed AWAY from personal observations, for those are entirely biased and subjective; instead, I've spent this entire discussion reciting the basic themes of 40 years of research into how American law enforcement has changed.

Personal experiences are just that: personal. I don't care about personal.

rwilymz wrote:

Don't look now, guys, but on the front page of the online Trib at this very moment are two articles which discuss public outrage over police heavy-handedness in dealing with the public at large:
1] dealing with an episode of a Chicago man "tazed" to death in Ohio
2] dealing with the fairly substantial public displeasure of the manner in which the city of Chicago is planning on collecting toll fines.
And that isn't even including the grossly misplaced [in my opinion] denunciations of the way in which area police "murdered" the cougar last week.
A population which trusts police doesn't show around a 60% disapproval rating for them killing a wild animal known to attack people, which is cornered outside a daycare full of children. I'm sorry; that simply doesn't get close to passing the sniff test.
I'm left to conclude that you are both either willfully ignorant or selectively blind.

Hey, I didn't enjoy getting stopped or paying my ticket. I certainly don't think all police are to be trusted. I was calling you out on your over-the-top statement about how all police officers will treat motorists as common criminals at a traffic stop. Freemage was doing something similar when he disagreed with that comment. But instead of acknowledging that you went overboard in your zeal to make your point and dialing back your rhetoric, you dug your heels in (as well as a deeper hole for yourself), insulted the guy and called him "confused."

I'm left to conclude that, for the most part, you are overly infatuated with your own thoughts and overly invested in your desire to appear correct and superior to others.

So I'm inventing what I need to invent in order to work up a good point, eh?

rwilymz wrote:

The average citizen's first, most common and often-times ONLY interaction with police comes in traffic law enforcement -- in which cops treat that average citizen as if he were a full-fledged violent criminal, and all for the purpose of extracting money from him.

rwilymz wrote:

Simply put: American citizens do not, as a whole, trust police officers ...

And you assert that you can demonstrate that these statements are not just "your hypothesis" were I to take your test of approaching a police officer when he stops me in traffic and ask him what's wrong? Well, I suppose I would get out and walk over to him if the officer were to just sit in his car indefinitely, not getting out, and just stare at me like a psycho. And then if he goes ballistic on me, well, like I said, that one was a psycho. But again, why would I want to rush out of my car and go to him if he were already at my window (which is what just about everyone expects him to do)? Surely that would be (and was) the occasion for me to ask him what was wrong.

Who else's hypothesis is it, this assertion that every -- or even the average -- police officer that would stop me in traffic will treat me like a common criminal, ready to assault him, etc. etc.? The authors or the subjects of these wonderful 40-year-old sociological studies?

You crack me up.

captain obvious wrote:

Hey, I didn't enjoy getting stopped or paying my ticket. I certainly don't think all police are to be trusted.

Then you are quibbling because you .... enjoy turning yourself into a target?

I was calling you out on ...

"Calling me out"??? What are you, 14?

Grow up.

I was calling you out on your over-the-top statement about how all police officers will treat motorists as common criminals at a traffic stop.

Great; and that makes you wrong.

Pollice officers are trained to do that very thing. So either they treat stopped motorists as criminals, or they are defying their training.

I'll allow as how every once in a while a cop will stop his uncle or parish priest and not get all officious, but apart from that ...

Freemage was doing something similar when he disagreed with that comment.

He is free to be incorrect as well. I don't care.

But instead of acknowledging that you went overboard in your zeal to make your point and dialing back your rhetoric, you dug your heels in (as well as a deeper hole for yourself), insulted the guy and called him "confused."

And guess what? I still correct, and those who disagree with me are not.

I'm left to conclude that, for the most part, you are overly infatuated with your own thoughts and overly invested in your desire to appear correct and superior to others.

When I am correct, I would be INcorrect to not acknowledge that.

captain obvious wrote:

So I'm inventing what I need to invent in order to work up a good point, eh?

You are in gra-a-a-and denial of reality, which sorta contradicts your completely misplaced online monicker.

Try "captain delirious".

And you assert that you can demonstrate that these statements are not just "your hypothesis" were I to take your test of approaching a police officer when he stops me in traffic and ask him what's wrong?

Correct. As you know [and if you don't then you participation in this discussion is completely beyond your knowledge and capacity], police are trained to take aggressive action against a motorist stopped at the policeman's direction for a moving violation when that motorist exits his vehicle without being directed to.

Well, I suppose I would get out and walk over to him if the officer were to just sit in his car indefinitely, not getting out, and just stare at me like a psycho.

...and he'd take aggressive action against you if you did.

And then if he goes ballistic on me, well, like I said, that one was a psycho.

Doesn't need to "go ballistic" to take aggressive action. Please do not advertise a complete disregard for intellectual honesty [more than you've done already] by equivocating to suit your purposes.

But again, why would I want to rush out of my car ....

You don't need to "rush out of your car"; you simply need to open the door and get out.

Who else's hypothesis is it, this assertion that every -- or even the average -- police officer that would stop me in traffic will treat me like a common criminal, ready to assault him, etc. etc.?

Police training manuals, actually.

Police are trained to make that assumption. They call it "self-defense" or "preventive self-defense" if I remember the terms correctly -- which, frankly, it is. A small share of folks who get stopped by cops are going to go nutso thinking about the increase in auto insurance, or wondering where they're going to scrape up X00 dollars for going 7 miles over a limit and slowing down. If I were a cop I'd want to protect myself from that driver as well.

An even smaller portion of those they stop are *actual* criminals who are substantially likely to ambush them. And they need to be protected from them especially.

But in the process of protecting themselves from the miniscule portion of drivers they stop, they treat EVERYone as if they were among tha miniscule portion -- which they aren't.

And that is not only insulting, but it verges on denial of constitutional liberty.

It certainly offends a great many people, and breeds distrust.

You crack me up.

And if you pay attention to what I say, I also teach you a little something about the way the real world works.

rwilymz wrote:

<quoted text>
You are in gra-a-a-and denial of reality, which sorta contradicts your completely misplaced online monicker.
Try "captain delirious".
<quoted text>
Correct. As you know [and if you don't then you participation in this discussion is completely beyond your knowledge and capacity], police are trained to take aggressive action against a motorist stopped at the policeman's direction for a moving violation when that motorist exits his vehicle without being directed to.
<quoted text>
...and he'd take aggressive action against you if you did.
<quoted text>
Doesn't need to "go ballistic" to take aggressive action. Please do not advertise a complete disregard for intellectual honesty [more than you've done already] by equivocating to suit your purposes.
<quoted text>
You don't need to "rush out of your car"; you simply need to open the door and get out.
<quoted text>
Police training manuals, actually.
Police are trained to make that assumption. They call it "self-defense" or "preventive self-defense" if I remember the terms correctly -- which, frankly, it is. A small share of folks who get stopped by cops are going to go nutso thinking about the increase in auto insurance, or wondering where they're going to scrape up X00 dollars for going 7 miles over a limit and slowing down. If I were a cop I'd want to protect myself from that driver as well.
An even smaller portion of those they stop are *actual* criminals who are substantially likely to ambush them. And they need to be protected from them especially.
But in the process of protecting themselves from the miniscule portion of drivers they stop, they treat EVERYone as if they were among tha miniscule portion -- which they aren't.
And that is not only insulting, but it verges on denial of constitutional liberty.
It certainly offends a great many people, and breeds distrust.
<quoted text>
And if you pay attention to what I say, I also teach you a little something about the way the real world works.

What real world are you talking about? Is it 75 and sunny in your world all the time. Try working as a police officer before you start to preah on how they should do their job.

Wack Job wrote:

What real world are you talking about? Is it 75 and sunny in your world all the time. Try working as a police officer before you start to preah on how they should do their job.

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Be a bully on the job, copper; this is the internet.

rwilymz wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
Be a bully on the job, copper; this is the internet.

I am not a police officer, I am a disabled veteran. That is why I do not tell Police Officers how to do ther job. Semper FI

My mistake.

And I'm not telling "da fuzz" how to do their job; I *am*, though, telling them [and others] how they are and will be perceived by a substantial [and growing] portion of the population if they continue to do their jobs in certain ways.

...I'm not real interested in whether you or they don't like the description.

I'm a veteran as well. See you at the V.

This forum turned in to a private war it seems.