3 ms·

The problem is that police is banned to do low-level traffic stops (so called “pretext stops) [1]. Reckless driving was not one of the offenses included in The

by tlogan 4y ago

The problem is that police is banned to do low-level traffic stops (so called “pretext stops) [1]. Reckless driving was not one of the offenses included in The City's policy against low-level “pretext stops,” but during the hearing some people (and I think one retired officer) clearly expressed their concern because you cannot "prove" reckless driving. [1] https://sfstandard.com/criminal-justice/sf-police-watchdogs-set-to-decide-ban-on-cops-pulling-over-drivers-for-low-level-traffic-offenses/ https://sfstandard.com/criminal-justice/sf-police-watchdogs-...

dragonwriter 4y ago
> you cannot “prove” reckless driving. So, everyone cited for reckless driving automatically wins if they go to court? Or, maybe, “you cannot ‘prove’ reckless driving” is a lie?
- tlogan 4y ago
  Who knows. Police officers during hearing and in private definitely expressed that concern. The problem is not if it is lie or not, it is what king of impact this have on police officers who are enforcing the law. These people are not robots.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Who knows. Who knows if an offense regularly charged in the legal system in question can be proven to the extent required in that legal system? Like, this isn’t a deep mystery that doesn’t have an clear and ready answer. > Police officers during hearing and in private definitely expressed that concern. Police, when advocating public policy, are very used to be taken at their word even when they are making readily falsified lies, and therefore they lie quite freely, confident in not being called out on it. This is very much one of those cases. > The problem is not if it is lie or not, it is what king of impact this have on police officers who are enforcing the law. The problem is buying the police line that police are passive entities being affected and not engaged in active manipulation.

by tlogan 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> you cannot “prove” reckless driving. So, everyone cited for reckless driving automatically wins if they go to court? Or, maybe, “you cannot ‘prove’ reckless driving” is a lie?

tlogan 4y ago
Who knows. Police officers during hearing and in private definitely expressed that concern. The problem is not if it is lie or not, it is what king of impact this have on police officers who are enforcing the law. These people are not robots.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Who knows. Who knows if an offense regularly charged in the legal system in question can be proven to the extent required in that legal system? Like, this isn’t a deep mystery that doesn’t have an clear and ready answer. > Police officers during hearing and in private definitely expressed that concern. Police, when advocating public policy, are very used to be taken at their word even when they are making readily falsified lies, and therefore they lie quite freely, confident in not being called out on it. This is very much one of those cases. > The problem is not if it is lie or not, it is what king of impact this have on police officers who are enforcing the law. The problem is buying the police line that police are passive entities being affected and not engaged in active manipulation.