255
Tyreek Hill learned he isn’t allowed to do what white people do
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
255 points (100.0% liked)
News
23268 readers
2370 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
when everyone and their mother has a gun in the U.S., and you're hiding behind heavily tinted windows, then yes, it is a safety issue. It's not an unreasonable request to keep your window rolled down during a traffic stop.
Don't take the job if you ain't willing to take a bullet over a traffic stop. That's the job. You don't get to violate rights for your own safety. Your safety is secondary as a cop. If you can't handle that fact of the position then you would be a shit cop.
Pizza delivery drivers have a higher chance to get shot than a fucking cop and yet you don't hear pizza drivers capping people left and right for their own safety. So I don't wanna hear your bullshit.
Die for that traffic stop pig. You wanted the badge without the risk.
Are we still talking about the window? How did telling him to roll his opaque window down violate his rights?
Because it isn't a lawful order. License and registration are all that's required for a traffic stop. If the officer had probable cause that a crime had been committed, then it would be a lawful order, but they didn't. Therefore, his rights were violated.
I guess having an adult conversation isn't something you're accustomed to.
Accustom Deez nuts
As we saw, it's actually a bigger safety issue if the cops can order you to lower your window. Fortunately, you and I don't get to decide what's "reasonable" in this context. It would go to the appeals courts, and who knows what would happen.
I think it's likely that the appeals courts would say that Pennsylvania v. Mimms already let cops order people out of the car, which solves the safety problem, so there's no need to give cops extra authority to order you around willy-nilly. The ordinary person has a clear interest in knowing what exactly cops can and can't order, and you're proposing increasing the ambiguity of it all, which (as we just saw) is dangerous.
most inane take I've read about this interaction
You didn't explain, which suggests shadiness, but let's assume better... Let's assume you didn't understand what I meant.
Cops can let you stay in the car. They can make you get out, if they have solid grounds to do so. That's relatively simple, and it lets cops choose the best location for the interaction. So it's safe for the cops (but not the occupants). Whatever, that's the law, OK.
But they can't have it both ways. If they let you stay in the car, they've already decided you probably aren't going to grab a gun from under the seat. So there's no safety issue for them.
But there is for you. They might reach in the window, for example, violating your civil rights. It would be better for them to have to open the door. It's easy to see big actions on dash and body cameras, and it's harder to write them off as accidental. You could even keep your door locked. After all, who knows if the cops stopping you are upstanding citizens. Who will vouch for their character, my friend?
Lock the door, crack the window as necessary, get out when ordered, always film the pigs. This is 100% legal common sense. Or don't, and risk your own safety. It's your life.
Per famous case law, finders v keepers.
wild logic.
Dude, you aren't making a lick of sense. Google "officer shot during traffic stop" and tell me again that keeping your window rolled down during a traffic stop is unreasonable.
two things he refused to do? What are you talking about, dude?
Did you watch the video? Your facts don't quite match what it showed. He gave the cops his papers, and then he closed the window, because he didn't need it open until they got back with his ticket. That's when they started power tripping. If they wanted him out of the car, all they had to do was wait 10 or 20 seconds. It really was that simple. But they wanted violence, so that's what they created.
What's actually dangerous to cops? The number one thing is bad driving by the cops themselves, which is the leading cause of death for officers on duty. During the pandemic, the pandemic itself was the other leading cause I think, because many officers didn't believe in it and they put themselves at risk.
Every year US cops shoot and kill over a thousand people. Many of those people are innocent. The risk to the average citizen is high, but the risk to the cop is much much lower. The last numbers I saw were in the hundreds, in the low hundreds, but it might even be lower than that. And now you're trying to carve out a special situation, where the cop is not shot when they first approached the car, but is only later shot after they already got the papers from the driver, and specifically because the driver closed their tinted window. I wonder if you can find even a single example of that happening in the last year. This is an issue that I tend to pay attention to, and I can't think of it happening in recent history.
And you might want to argue that we should err on the side of caution. First of all, that's not the law of the land. The Constitution doesn't allow you to do that. Second, if the situation is as rare as I think it is, almost or entirely non-existent, then what you're talking about is paranoia. In that case, you need a psychologist, not an open window. Third, the threat to the driver and passengers is real. If the cop makes a mistake, they may draw their gun and shoot people in the car. What if an acorn falls near them? They might shoot the driver. Sadly, this is a very real situation, unlike your hypothetical. In other words, the facts are not on your side here.