The old idea that you pull people over to search their cars. A dear pet theory of these liberals. They always leave out warrant stats. Warrants are the first and foremost aim of interdiction stops. Searches typically come after the arrest and subsequent impoundment of the vehicle.
It is not true that auto searches typically occur after impoundment. After all, there are relatively few bases for an impoundment. Just last month here in liberal NorCal, we got an interesting appellate opinion arising from an auto search in Santa Rosa.
The lawful basis for the stop was the lack of a front license plate. This was crucial, since it was conceded that the cops wanted to search the car all along because they knew it was driven by gang members. The Jerry Brown-appointed trial judge invalidated the seizure of illegal weapons because the stop was "pretextual." This was reversed, as SCOTUS has long held that pretextual stops are OK. In other words, as long as there's an actual vehicle code violation, it's irrelevant that the cops really wanted to search for a separate reason. This is so well-established that the trial judge might be privately reproved for the ethical lapse of blatantly ignoring settled law.
Incidentally, I've noticed that in the Santa Rosa area, nearly half of high-end cars are unlawfully missing the front plate - especially true of Teslas, whose owners apparently feel that a front plate ruins the aesthetics. The court system (which shares in traffic fines) is really missing out when these UMC types aren't ticketed.
I recall reading that Steve Jobs paid 700k to the state of California for the privilege of having neither a front nor a rear license plate on his car. Ahem.. I actually fact checked myself. Apparently, Jobs leased a new Mercedes every six months, taking advantage of a loophole allowing a six months grace period before displaying one’s tags.
Everybody has prejudices and anyone who says otherwise is lying. Most police have prejudices that inform them about criminals. These prejudices are formed by events in their lives. Police live in reality not some sort of theoretical world. Most people don't live in a world in which they have to think about criminals all the time. Yes, police occasionally make mistakes and some men who become policemen abuse their positions of authority. But it isn't an easy job. Think about the practicality of a situation I was in five years ago. I was stopped by a deputy sheriff in rural Virginia for a rear plate light being out. The sheriff smelled alcohol on my breath. I had drunk two beers that night. He gave me a physical sobriety test and then asked me to blow into a brethalyzer. I blew an 0.083. Just above the alcohol limits on driving legally. But by the time I would have reached the county jail I would have been below the limit. The deputy told me that I performed the physical test well. So he told me that I could go free if I drove to the next gas station and called my wife to pick me up. I told the deputy that an Italian restaurant just beyond would be a better place for my wife to find me. He agreed and I fulfilled my word to the deputy. I drove to the Italian restaurant and I don't even think the deputy bothered to follow me.
To some extent the statement "politics is downstream from culture" applies here in terms of what happened and what will likely be policy around law enforcement in the future. The generation of people who occupied positions of authority in the first 20 years of this century either directly or indirectly (through their parents and teachers) were connected to the civil rights era and the idea that society should largely be deferential and tolerant of black misbehavior. The core belief was that blacks are not inherently different from everyone else, they are just the victims of a social system that makes them do bad things. Thus we get the various woke prescriptions for society that we've gotten good and hard for the last 15 years or so.
We are in an era of transition at the moment, and a lot of these players are headed towards retirement or decreased relevance as a younger cohort (Gen X and Millennials) start to assume positions of power. As such part of their constituency are the even younger generations that they need to court to ensure they can hold onto the positions and influence they have. It appears that younger men are more conservative than their predecessor generations, by which it appears they are rebelling against a feminized culture that says they are undesirables other than when they surrender their interests in service to women or certain social outliers. Young women are more liberal but ultimately many of them are going to end up in relationships with young men who are more to the right and the women will move in that direction as well to an extent our of mutual self interest or spousal loyalty. They are not going to be supportive of policies that produce disorder and do not have the same instinct for deference to blacks as the older generations do, and I think this attitude will harden.
Anecdotally, I have a teenage son and the attitudes he and his friends have on racial stuff - regardless of their parents' politics - is definitely quite conscious of who are the biggest source of disorder and danger to others and not at all inclined to thinking they are somehow responsible for it.
". Young women are more liberal but ultimately many of them are going to end up in relationships with young men who are more to the right and the women will move in that direction as well to an extent our of mutual self interest or spousal loyalty."
I agree with most of what you said except this. The MGTOW/men's right movement is largely separating men from pursuing women, at least the type of guys who previously would have been good husbands and fathers. Most of today's men are disgusted with the non-viginal,tattooed, slutty, foul-mouthed, open-borders, pro-crime, blame-whitey, fat entitled blue haired baby-killers women are, and see how the family courts and society rip men and families apart, and avoid.
Although insulted as incels, most are either choosing celibacy (30+ guys usually) or else merely taking on prostitutes for sex and avoiding being falsely accused of sexual assault, or being cucked by a wife, or having the family law system attack them by risking a relationship/marriage.
Most young women are not responding to this by becoming chaste and feminine, but instead going all out even harder to sleep with the Chads and Tyrons. Women are choosing to be in harems.
Until the crime happens to a communist, they don't care.
Anna K. of the Young Turks is perhaps a salient recent example, but she (and the rest of the Young Turks crew) very likely decided a while ago to make a shift to the center on crime and immigration (as they perceived the extreme left right now to be crazy and suicidal). So I think its more logical that she's not really reacting to a personal attack as making a calculated, long-planned shift; her little anecdote about being pursued by her Los Angeles home by some druggie homeless miscreant(s) may be made up to garner sympathy from her dwindling viewers and explain away her shift as natural and not forced.
But, for the most part, communists, being extremely selfish, don't care when bad things happen to anyone but themselves. Suffer for the party, comrades!
The nice thing about the Jersey story and the post Floyd traffic deaths is that it is strong evidence that the cops pull people over for good reason and it has a real effect on safety. Most people wonder why they can pull you over for speeding when the speed limit is set too low and also, how much faster can you go that the posted limit. The system seems a little unfair. They should raise the speed limit and then pull you over for breaking the actual speed limit. That's what I always thought.
Politicians forget that crime is cumulative for the victims and survivors; a lower rate means nothing. I haven't forgotten burglars took several heirlooms and a TV in 1999. Three Sundays ago, I put $130 in the ashtray of my car before our holiday trip, and the next day it had been rifled. It creeps me out that someone saw me (there's a rooming house next door) or invades my carport that often. I keep a hatchet by the back door since my car alarm went off a dozen years ago, but I must not have locked the car. Police HQ is about a hundred fifty yards away.
As the iSteve New Jersey correspondent, I can confirm that our police have mostly stopped policing our roadways. Throw in the fact that people forgot how to drive during covid and the roads are a disaster where it is every man for himself. A few months ago on a highway in Newark (our largest city) I was surrounded by have a dozen ATV's, which are not street legal. I was stunned at the audacity, but as far as I could tell the young gentlemen continued to enjoy their excursion without any hassle.
Another issue is that people will drive way BELOW the speed limit on the highway as well, either because they are illegally using their cellphones or because they are exiting the highway in a mile-or-so so they slow down to 25 in the right-hand lane, which makes it difficult for those traveling at highway speed to exit.
Humans like to find fault and punish each other. I love liberal white ladies but want them to stop attacking as racist everything required to have a first world nation. So I propose we start punishing teachers who consistently fail to close the racial IQ gap. Let these moral busy bodies busy themselves in punishing and being punished by each other and leave the rest of us out of their fetishism.
The Law Enforcement Officers I have known personally (they are all retired now, like me although I still do some part time Engineering work) said the same thing as you have written. It's pretty straightforward human behavioral analysis.
People really don’t get what police deal with on a daily basis. If they spent just a day and night in their shoes… they’d be down on their hands and knees in gratitude.
"I don't want the cops thinking they're Dirty Harry!"
"Why don't cops do their job!"
Way too many voters hold these beliefs. Which one they voice depends on who the cops are pulling over.
The old idea that you pull people over to search their cars. A dear pet theory of these liberals. They always leave out warrant stats. Warrants are the first and foremost aim of interdiction stops. Searches typically come after the arrest and subsequent impoundment of the vehicle.
It is not true that auto searches typically occur after impoundment. After all, there are relatively few bases for an impoundment. Just last month here in liberal NorCal, we got an interesting appellate opinion arising from an auto search in Santa Rosa.
The lawful basis for the stop was the lack of a front license plate. This was crucial, since it was conceded that the cops wanted to search the car all along because they knew it was driven by gang members. The Jerry Brown-appointed trial judge invalidated the seizure of illegal weapons because the stop was "pretextual." This was reversed, as SCOTUS has long held that pretextual stops are OK. In other words, as long as there's an actual vehicle code violation, it's irrelevant that the cops really wanted to search for a separate reason. This is so well-established that the trial judge might be privately reproved for the ethical lapse of blatantly ignoring settled law.
Incidentally, I've noticed that in the Santa Rosa area, nearly half of high-end cars are unlawfully missing the front plate - especially true of Teslas, whose owners apparently feel that a front plate ruins the aesthetics. The court system (which shares in traffic fines) is really missing out when these UMC types aren't ticketed.
I recall reading that Steve Jobs paid 700k to the state of California for the privilege of having neither a front nor a rear license plate on his car. Ahem.. I actually fact checked myself. Apparently, Jobs leased a new Mercedes every six months, taking advantage of a loophole allowing a six months grace period before displaying one’s tags.
Everybody has prejudices and anyone who says otherwise is lying. Most police have prejudices that inform them about criminals. These prejudices are formed by events in their lives. Police live in reality not some sort of theoretical world. Most people don't live in a world in which they have to think about criminals all the time. Yes, police occasionally make mistakes and some men who become policemen abuse their positions of authority. But it isn't an easy job. Think about the practicality of a situation I was in five years ago. I was stopped by a deputy sheriff in rural Virginia for a rear plate light being out. The sheriff smelled alcohol on my breath. I had drunk two beers that night. He gave me a physical sobriety test and then asked me to blow into a brethalyzer. I blew an 0.083. Just above the alcohol limits on driving legally. But by the time I would have reached the county jail I would have been below the limit. The deputy told me that I performed the physical test well. So he told me that I could go free if I drove to the next gas station and called my wife to pick me up. I told the deputy that an Italian restaurant just beyond would be a better place for my wife to find me. He agreed and I fulfilled my word to the deputy. I drove to the Italian restaurant and I don't even think the deputy bothered to follow me.
Good for everyone.
Right. The deputy knew I was no threat to safety. I even ordered a pizza to go.
To some extent the statement "politics is downstream from culture" applies here in terms of what happened and what will likely be policy around law enforcement in the future. The generation of people who occupied positions of authority in the first 20 years of this century either directly or indirectly (through their parents and teachers) were connected to the civil rights era and the idea that society should largely be deferential and tolerant of black misbehavior. The core belief was that blacks are not inherently different from everyone else, they are just the victims of a social system that makes them do bad things. Thus we get the various woke prescriptions for society that we've gotten good and hard for the last 15 years or so.
We are in an era of transition at the moment, and a lot of these players are headed towards retirement or decreased relevance as a younger cohort (Gen X and Millennials) start to assume positions of power. As such part of their constituency are the even younger generations that they need to court to ensure they can hold onto the positions and influence they have. It appears that younger men are more conservative than their predecessor generations, by which it appears they are rebelling against a feminized culture that says they are undesirables other than when they surrender their interests in service to women or certain social outliers. Young women are more liberal but ultimately many of them are going to end up in relationships with young men who are more to the right and the women will move in that direction as well to an extent our of mutual self interest or spousal loyalty. They are not going to be supportive of policies that produce disorder and do not have the same instinct for deference to blacks as the older generations do, and I think this attitude will harden.
Anecdotally, I have a teenage son and the attitudes he and his friends have on racial stuff - regardless of their parents' politics - is definitely quite conscious of who are the biggest source of disorder and danger to others and not at all inclined to thinking they are somehow responsible for it.
". Young women are more liberal but ultimately many of them are going to end up in relationships with young men who are more to the right and the women will move in that direction as well to an extent our of mutual self interest or spousal loyalty."
I agree with most of what you said except this. The MGTOW/men's right movement is largely separating men from pursuing women, at least the type of guys who previously would have been good husbands and fathers. Most of today's men are disgusted with the non-viginal,tattooed, slutty, foul-mouthed, open-borders, pro-crime, blame-whitey, fat entitled blue haired baby-killers women are, and see how the family courts and society rip men and families apart, and avoid.
Although insulted as incels, most are either choosing celibacy (30+ guys usually) or else merely taking on prostitutes for sex and avoiding being falsely accused of sexual assault, or being cucked by a wife, or having the family law system attack them by risking a relationship/marriage.
Most young women are not responding to this by becoming chaste and feminine, but instead going all out even harder to sleep with the Chads and Tyrons. Women are choosing to be in harems.
So the divide will grow.
Is this your personal experience or something you see reflected online?
I don't really see that with the teens and 20 somethings that I know IRL, but perhaps that's a function of my social circle.
Until the crime happens to a communist, they don't care.
Anna K. of the Young Turks is perhaps a salient recent example, but she (and the rest of the Young Turks crew) very likely decided a while ago to make a shift to the center on crime and immigration (as they perceived the extreme left right now to be crazy and suicidal). So I think its more logical that she's not really reacting to a personal attack as making a calculated, long-planned shift; her little anecdote about being pursued by her Los Angeles home by some druggie homeless miscreant(s) may be made up to garner sympathy from her dwindling viewers and explain away her shift as natural and not forced.
But, for the most part, communists, being extremely selfish, don't care when bad things happen to anyone but themselves. Suffer for the party, comrades!
I like the ending of the column with an 80s action movie tag line:
"Will they get away with it? Not if I have a say."
How about--
"but they forgot one thing...I am the memory hole."
The nice thing about the Jersey story and the post Floyd traffic deaths is that it is strong evidence that the cops pull people over for good reason and it has a real effect on safety. Most people wonder why they can pull you over for speeding when the speed limit is set too low and also, how much faster can you go that the posted limit. The system seems a little unfair. They should raise the speed limit and then pull you over for breaking the actual speed limit. That's what I always thought.
Except it looks like the existing system works.
Politicians forget that crime is cumulative for the victims and survivors; a lower rate means nothing. I haven't forgotten burglars took several heirlooms and a TV in 1999. Three Sundays ago, I put $130 in the ashtray of my car before our holiday trip, and the next day it had been rifled. It creeps me out that someone saw me (there's a rooming house next door) or invades my carport that often. I keep a hatchet by the back door since my car alarm went off a dozen years ago, but I must not have locked the car. Police HQ is about a hundred fifty yards away.
As the iSteve New Jersey correspondent, I can confirm that our police have mostly stopped policing our roadways. Throw in the fact that people forgot how to drive during covid and the roads are a disaster where it is every man for himself. A few months ago on a highway in Newark (our largest city) I was surrounded by have a dozen ATV's, which are not street legal. I was stunned at the audacity, but as far as I could tell the young gentlemen continued to enjoy their excursion without any hassle.
Another issue is that people will drive way BELOW the speed limit on the highway as well, either because they are illegally using their cellphones or because they are exiting the highway in a mile-or-so so they slow down to 25 in the right-hand lane, which makes it difficult for those traveling at highway speed to exit.
Aren't you a Democrat? Welcome to the future you chose.
Humans like to find fault and punish each other. I love liberal white ladies but want them to stop attacking as racist everything required to have a first world nation. So I propose we start punishing teachers who consistently fail to close the racial IQ gap. Let these moral busy bodies busy themselves in punishing and being punished by each other and leave the rest of us out of their fetishism.
The Law Enforcement Officers I have known personally (they are all retired now, like me although I still do some part time Engineering work) said the same thing as you have written. It's pretty straightforward human behavioral analysis.
One of South Park’s best episodes was about this.
People really don’t get what police deal with on a daily basis. If they spent just a day and night in their shoes… they’d be down on their hands and knees in gratitude.