Counterintuitive
By Mitch Berg
A friend of the blog email:
So, if the cops think they got one of the shooters of those young kids in Mpls, they can’t pull him over if they have a taillight out?
Just asking.
What, you think Jeremiah Ellison, Philippe Cunningham and Lisa Bender have thought this through from a law enforcement perspective?
And people call me a pollyanna .
May 20th, 2021 at 8:14 am
You’re in support of pre-text stops Mitch? Or are you staking out cultural territory here.
What’s the legitimate law enforcement perspective? Like what was it for Yanez when he pulled Castile over for having a broken taillight (with that being what we call “a lie”)…
How about, if they think they’ve got one of the young kid shooters in a car, they pull him over for being a suspect in the young kid shootings and do a felony traffic stop for that rather than a BS pretext stop. That is one of the lessons of Yanez / Castile, that you don’t intermingle pretext stops with felony traffic stops such that you’re actually trying to do a felony traffic stop.
The premise is baloney anyway. A patrol guy in a cruiser isn’t going to have Columbo like insight that anyone in a car is a suspect for anything.
May 20th, 2021 at 8:58 am
Wednesday, Mitch Berg: I’m sure glad SCOTUS ruled cops cant play 4th amendment games on [white] gunowners.
Thursday, Mitch Berg: Cops should be able to play 4th amendment games on [black] motorists.
May 20th, 2021 at 9:40 am
“Maria” Kraephammer
had you read the decision you would be aware that the Justices explicitly stated that what is permissible in a traffic stop is not permissible in the home in fact they addressed the issue of traffic stops at some length. But you’re one of those girls who “knows things” without having to actually waste your time with tiresome chores like reading. Way to further the cause of ignorance.
May 20th, 2021 at 9:43 am
Putting racist words in other peoples mouths is bad enough, but you don’t have to be blatantly racist while you do it.
John Kraephammer, you are definitely a d-bag.
May 20th, 2021 at 9:51 am
The thing that strikes me about what many cities are doing–moving traffic enforcement to unarmed officers–is that when the means of escalating an interaction are unavailable (e.g. no taser or pistol), people will start to ignore them, and some will start shooting them.
“Pretext” pull-over? I actually don’t think that’s the right term, but rather “pull over for minor or major safety issues.” Having nearly been rear ended by a semi a couple of years back when one of my brake lights was out, I’m not terribly keen on stopping these stops. I’d much rather get a “fix it ticket” (my wife got a few in high school) than be rear ended by a semi.
Moreover, I’m aware of a lot of fairly serious criminals who were apprehended this way. Do we really want to stop this serendipitous way of finding criminals who otherwise do a good job of hiding?
May 20th, 2021 at 9:58 am
I was on routine night patrol on Broadway Avenue in North Minneapolis when I noticed a vehicle with an inoperative tail light. As I followed the vehicle, I typed the license plate number in my squad car computer. It came back as registered to a person having an outstanding warrant for his arrest. I activated my lights but the suspect driver did not stop. I briefly activated the siren and the suspect driver increased speed and made a sudden turn down a side street. As the suspect vehicle turned, my headlights illuminated the driver, an African-American male approximately age 20. I immediately broke off pursuit and reported to the precinct for mandatory sensitivity training. Officer Smith, Badge 123.
May 20th, 2021 at 10:00 am
^ That’s not a pretext stop, lawyer Joe
May 20th, 2021 at 10:05 am
Troy, you’d do well to learn to read gooder. Me constructing an observation using bracketed context is not putting racist words in Mitch’s mouth. That’s what the brackets are for, to take it out of his imaginary mouth, and make it come from mine.
I don’t think Mitch is a racist. I think culturally he wants to be aligned opposite BLM, which makes him take the wrong side of a 4th amendment argument, one that he doesn’t take in other areas.
May 20th, 2021 at 10:19 am
BB – pretextual stop or pullover is the right term. Its the broken windows policing of vehicle patrol.
May 20th, 2021 at 10:29 am
I was on routine night patrol on Dumont Avenue in North Minneapolis when I noticed a vehicle with an inoperative tail light. As I followed the vehicle, I observed it weave in its lane and briefly cross the fog line. I activated my lights and the suspect driver turned left down a side street. As the suspect vehicle turned, my headlights illuminated the driver, an African-American male approximately age 20. I immediately broke off pursuit and reported to the precinct for mandatory sensitivity training. Officer Smith, Badge 123.
May 20th, 2021 at 10:32 am
So, if the cops think they got one of the shooters of those young kids in Mpls, they can’t pull him over if they have a taillight out?
Why would cops in this case need a pretext at all? Isn’t suspicion of murder enough?
May 20th, 2021 at 10:33 am
Better, Joe, but if you have probable cause for DUI its still not a pretext stop, certainly not in the way its discussed as a legal and police work “artifact”
May 20th, 2021 at 10:37 am
JPA – correctamundo. That’s a felony stop with a warrant.
Imagining the cops stop this guy for pretext is a stupid scenario crank righties contrive up to ax grind about what they think BLM types think of pretext stops. And they want to take the opposite view.
Its a matter of cultural and political alignment, that’s all it is.
May 20th, 2021 at 10:41 am
I was on routine night patrol Westbound on Dowling Avenue in Minneapolis when I noticed a vehicle that matched the description of a stolen vehicle in a Hot Sheet bulletin that I had studied before coming on duty – a late-model white Honda Civic. I activated my lights and the suspect vehicle driver made a left turn down a side street. As the suspect vehicle turned, my headlights illuminated the driver, an African-American male approximately age 20. I immediately broke off pursuit and reported to the precinct for mandatory sensitivity training. Officer Smith, Badge 123.
May 20th, 2021 at 10:50 am
I was on routine patrol Westbound on Larpenteur Avenue in Falcon Heights when I noticed a vehicle in the Eastbound lane. The driver matched me of a robbery suspect described in a BOLO that I had studied before coming on duty. I activated my lights and made a u-turn. The suspect vehicle driver stopped. The driver rolled down his window and I smelled a strong odor of burning marijuana. The driver mumbled something I could not understand and had trouble holding his head up to look me in the face. I determined the driver was an African-American male approximately age 30. I immediately apologized for stopping him and reported to the precinct for mandatory sensitivity training. Officer Smith, Badge 123.
May 20th, 2021 at 10:52 am
I was on routine evening patrol eastbound on Larpentuer Avenue in Falcon Heights when I noticed a black man with a “wide set nose” in vehicle driving the opposite direction that matched the description of a man in a Hot Sheet bulletin that I had studied before coming on duty. I turned to follow and stopped him for pretext of having a broken taillight…. Officer Yanez, Badge …
May 20th, 2021 at 10:54 am
Ha! Your version is the a lying cop piece of shit though, Joe, and you’re the guy who believes it.
May 20th, 2021 at 11:00 am
After you read a few hundred police reports they begin to sound the same and you realize the problem with all police reports is they are self-serving testimony. The officer can write whatever he needs to write in order to justify the stop and there’s no way to know whether it happened as stated or whether it’s a lie made up later for CYA.
Worse, cops are legally permitted to lie to suspects to distract them from the real investigation and to keep them calm (you don’t tell a driver “I’m sending you to prison” because that will make them resist; instead, you tell them “You have a bad tail light, come take a look” so they get out of the car in a mood to cooperate with you).
The Brooklyn Center cops who stopped Duante Wright claim they saw the expired tag on his license plate, but that could be a lie. Maybe they just stopped him for Driving While Black and seized on the tag as a convenient excuse after it all went bad.
How can an armchair quarterback tell whether the players on the field made the right call?
May 20th, 2021 at 11:03 am
That is a problem, and a big one, Joe.
Oh, I think you can assume at this point in history every police report has a self serving lie. Its not like they ever get prosecuted for perjury.
May 20th, 2021 at 11:06 am
every police report has a self serving lie.
May 20th, 2021 at 11:07 am
I’m going to repeat that for those who missed it:
every police report has a self serving lie.
May 20th, 2021 at 11:07 am
I agree, completely
May 20th, 2021 at 11:08 am
They lie when they dont have to, even
May 20th, 2021 at 11:08 am
I take it back, you don’t believe it, and I’m glad
May 20th, 2021 at 11:25 am
Every police report has a self-serving lie. Cops lie even when they don’t have to.
Taking it another step: cops affirm their lying reports on the witness stand, making them perjurors. Cops hide behind their lying reports to avoid punishment for assaults and even killings.
Therefore, society should . . . .
May 20th, 2021 at 11:26 am
…prosecute cops for their malfeasance and law breaking
May 20th, 2021 at 11:37 am
All cops lie
Society should prosecute all cops
?
Crime will disappear as peace and love break out after all the cops are gone
I’m still unclear on that one step.
May 20th, 2021 at 11:38 am
Wow, judging by the number of comments and the responses kraphead has dropped another steamer
May 20th, 2021 at 11:42 am
It’s fair to observe quite a bit of cop lying is coming out in court adjudications and what not.
Just start the prosecutions with the low hanging fruit. Like this: https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-drug-case-falls-apart-raising-questions-about-existence-of-secret-informant/600056732/
The cop is a liar. There needs to be a mechanism in the county attorney’s office that takes on making a case against this guy.
May 20th, 2021 at 11:43 am
Kinlaw, I don’t argue everything. I just argue what I’m interested in and what the SiTD gang is wrong about.
Kinlaw, as I say, you’d be the stupidest guy here if AllenS weren’t around.
May 20th, 2021 at 11:54 am
So, if the cops think they got one of the shooters of those young kids in Mpls, they can’t pull him over if they have a taillight out?
Why would cops in this case need a pretext at all? Isn’t suspicion of murder enough?
The trick that comes to mind for me is if the person is driving a vehicle not registered to or otherwise linked to him. It happens, and that’s (a) one reason why you don’t want to send traffic enforcement out unarmed and (b) why you want to pull people over for these minor violations from time to time.
Yes, make sure it’s not a pattern of DWB tickets, and yes, let’s punish officers when they’re caught lying. But if indeed brake lights and such are part of driving safety, by all means issue tickets on that, and if we catch some felons inadvertently, all the better.
May 20th, 2021 at 11:55 am
Prosecute cops
?
Crime ends
Which shall henceforth be known as The Underpants Gnome Model of Police Reform
May 20th, 2021 at 12:56 pm
Once the police are gone, I’ll be providing the safety for America. Think about it Krapinthepants.
May 20th, 2021 at 1:07 pm
There is a reason that gun and ammo sales continue on an upward trajectory. The arguments made via many of these comments, illustrate it quite succinctly. Further, I’ve seen many new faces, primarily women, at the gun range and I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard these words; “if anyone would have told me two years ago that I would be shooting, let alone owning a gun, I would have laughed at them.”
May 20th, 2021 at 1:12 pm
There’s been a large spike in the number of cops are being assaulted by suspects and/or bystanders when they pull someone over or when they arrive on scene (if you believe the Strib). If a certain segment of the public is unconcerned about assaulting an armed cop, then I wonder how those “ambassadors” will fare?
May 20th, 2021 at 2:29 pm
Night:
You are correct. I shared this table with my daughter when she was lamenting the number of blacks killed by police officers. My statement was that more police officers are murdered by black people, than the other way around. Shut her up pretty quick.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/leoka19_tables_rev.pdf
May 20th, 2021 at 3:52 pm
John Kraephammer wrote:
“[blah blah reading advice from someone who desperately needs writing advice blah]
I don’t think Mitch is a racist.”
Well that’s something at least.
And you’d be wrong to point fingers at anyone else when electing “stupidest guy”.
May 20th, 2021 at 4:01 pm
Troy, no, I don’t think so, I think I’ve got that nailed down. AllenS is the stupidest guy here, Kinlaw is the 3rd. I’m not wrong to point fingers there.
May 20th, 2021 at 7:25 pm
I’ll have you know, I was a C, C-minus high schooler. I should have left in the 8th grade. I am a good shot, though.
May 20th, 2021 at 8:16 pm
People who brag about how smart they are or how stupid other people are?
Inferiority comlex. See JBiden.
May 20th, 2021 at 8:17 pm
Generally, people who think like I do are very smart. The less you think like me, the more stupid you are. See JKraephammer.
May 20th, 2021 at 8:35 pm
Yeah, I think you’ve got the position “nailed down” alright.
Just not in any self aware sort of way.
The real question is this: do you think you appear more intelligent when you call other people stupid?
Or do you feel your insults are charismatic or persuasive in some way?
I mean, there’s a point to it, right?
If there is indeed a point, you should try to express it, and not only in a way that people could understand, but perhaps in a way they would like to understand as well.
While “other people are just stupid” is an efficient conclusion (no additional consideration required), it is lazy and it isn’t usually true. Like now, for instance.
May 21st, 2021 at 8:14 am
Expanding on MO’s point:
If you disagree with me, it’s probably because you are uninformed. I’ll explain things to you so you can understand why I’m right and you’re wrong.
If you continue to disagree with me, it’s probably because you just aren’t as clever as I am, so even though I’ve explained things to you, you still don’t understand why I’m right and you’re wrong. You’re just dumb, not smart like me.
If you continue to disagree with me, it’s probably because you are playing Devil’s Advocate, since nobody as smart as me who understands things as I do, could possibly come to an different conclusion in good faith, it must be a joke or a game.
If you continue to disagree with me, despite being as clever as I, as well informed as I, and as earnest as I, then you are Evil, a Wicked person. I adjure you. I shun you and all your works. I will strive to destroy you lest you use your Evil Wickedness to lead others into Error, which causes Sin and results in Eternal Damnation. Out with you!
May 21st, 2021 at 8:23 am
JD, based on your comments you believe that an “honest cop” is an oxymoron. Why shouldn’t qualified immunity be more qualified and cops be held to higher standards if they qualify for an immunity? Yeah, I know, they put their lives on the line, but does putting your life on the line immediately qualify you to be immune from scrutiny and allow you to break the law? Should it?
May 21st, 2021 at 8:54 am
justplainangry: no, I don’t believe ‘honest cop’ is an oxymoron. I represented small cities for a decade, including prosecuting cases filed by their cops. I knew the cops in my cities and I believe they were honest people trying hard to do the right thing in difficult circumstances.
Earlier in the comments, I was engaging in ‘reductio ad absurdum’ to demonstrate that a certain claim, taken to its logical conclusion, gives an absurd result which proves the claim must be false. It’s a well-established analystical tool used in mathematics and formal logic as well as in debate.
I was responding to this: John Kraephammer on May 20, 2021 at 11:03 am said:
” . . . every police report has a self serving lie.”
And to this: John Kraephammer on May 20, 2021 at 11:08 am said:
“They lie when they dont have to, even.”
And to this: John Kraephammer on May 20, 2021 at 11:26 am said:
“…prosecute cops for their malfeasance and law breaking.”
Which led to me pointing out:
“Prosecute cops
?
Crime ends.”
which I called the Underpants Gnome Model of Police Reform, a reference to the South Park cartoon, to illustrate the absurdity of the result and therefore the falsity of the claims.
The issue of qualified immunity did not arise.
May 21st, 2021 at 9:38 am
Regarding “calling people stupid”, I’m reminded of the difference between cunning and wisdom. My experience in life is that there are any number of people who are sharp as a tack, but with the wisdom of a donkey–no insult intended to equus asinus, of course.
It also is worth noting that when one feels compelled to insult others, one immediately falls into the category of “person using personal attacks and other genetic fallacies”, or, translated, “people without wisdom.” If you lead with a logical fallacy, you automatically fall into either “people who can not make a real argument” or “people who will not make a real argument.”
May 21st, 2021 at 9:47 am
JD, I got the witty reparte and the exercise in ‘reductio ad absurdum’ but am still very interested in your take on qualified immunity. I believe it as a lynchpin in police reform to make crooked cops AND prosecutors accountable for their malfeasance.
May 21st, 2021 at 11:19 am
Fellas, relax. The couple of fingers number of you guys that have been insulted by me in the last couple of weeks are the obvious low decile guys here at SiTD. If the guys who jump in merely to say “‘Kraephammer is leaving steaming piles again” etc without saying anything else would refrain from doing that, then I wouldn’t actually be insulting anyone as stupid.
May 21st, 2021 at 1:23 pm
^^ I’m still waiting for MBerg to respond to your first comment…
May 21st, 2021 at 2:04 pm
^ I’m not. Sometimes Mitch expends an effort, and sometimes he doesn’t (and the same can be said of all of us…). This was a Mitch shitpost in the first place with the superseding purpose being the troll-ey tropey jape at progressive council members.