5 ms·

California Cops Can't Ask Drivers 'Do You Know Why I Pulled You Over?'

54 points by jstarfish 3y ago

jstarfish 3y ago
In any other state, just feign ignorance.
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Sounds like somebody has a hot button. It's just a question. Answer "No I don't? How can I help you, officer?" A new law seems like overkill.
- catchnear4321 3y ago
  “don’t fuck with citizens you pull over before explaining why you pulled them over” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
- wenebego 3y ago
  "Woule you like me to shine your boots officer sir"
  - echelon 3y ago
    I think some people are built to despise authority and social order. Some of this may have something to do with early childhood experiences or parenting. edit: obviously direct bad experiences, institutional treatment, discrimination, etc. also shape attitudes. I was thinking about folks who didn't fall into these groups, eg. wealthy European luxury car drivers, etc.
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      Some people are built to assume trust in authority and that authority maintains social order. The truth is that there's always another side of the coin - every framing has it's opposite.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      It does seem pretty prevalent nowadays and ironically they almost never are as smart as they pretend to be.
      - hnbad 3y ago
        How is that ironic? Neither accepting nor rejecting "the social order" requires one to be smart. As always in politics the question isn't simply "what do you want" but "why do you want that".
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        It's ironic because there's an appearance of desiring the attention of passing readers via posturing. When the vast majority of such readers will, at best, spend a few seconds reading, and then dismiss it. If they write genuinely convincing, well elaborated, arguments, then it wouldn't be ironic. Because then there would be a reasonable expectation of some readers actually buying it, instead of, at best, joining in on the game.
    - antihipocrat 3y ago
      Agree, though for a lot of people authority and the prevailing social order has caused negative experiences their entire lives. I'm actually surprised there isn't more discontent.
    - discordance 3y ago
      That seems a bit dismissive to all that we know, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americans_killed_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_by_date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutal...
    - hnbad 3y ago
      Oh, authority is fine. For example, if you're a medical professional, I'll assume you have more knowledge in that domain and defer to your expertise unless I have reason to suspect you're talking out of your ass and hoping I won't notice. But the thing with medical professionals is that they can't hold a gun to your head if you disagree with them. Law enforcement on the other hand requires no expertise (often even being ignorant of the exact laws they're supposed to enforce) and its own claim to authority is by the barrel of a gun. You presumably don't accept the authority of a schoolyard bully, so why do you accept any "authority" only backed up by a threat of violence? And if you presumably seek relationships that see eye to eye in a romantic partner or your circle of friends, why would you accept a "social order" that puts any man below another, let alone so many below so few (even if you might happen to be among those few)? That just doesn't sound very sensible. I don't want to oppress others and I don't want to be oppressed either. A literal armed officer who can get away with killing me is the perfect representation of that so why would I have any warm feelings towards them? Especially when modern police training in the US often literally involves telling them they're the "sheepdogs despised by the sheep because the sheep mistake them for wolves". We know that familial violence can be cyclic with children suffering abuse by their parents normalising the abuse to cope with their experiences and then replicating the abuse when they themselves become parents. We know this takes conscious effort to break out of. We know that subjects of authoritarian governments will likewise often quickly adapt and rationalise the abuse they suffer. What makes you think you're the sane one rather than the victim who rationalizes the abusive system they can't escape their black iron prison?
  - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
    [dead]
- danielfoster 3y ago
  Even better, "Because you wanted to."
  - pixl97 3y ago
    "Because I'm an incredibly sexy person and you wanted a better look at me"
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      I've actually seen someone try this. They were cited for attempted bribery.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  Admit speeding Admit not knowing you were speeding This is something that worries alot of people and they do irrational things not knowing to do, and the legislature is aiming to promote de-escalating for both civilians and officers
  - NikkiA 3y ago
    You're supposed to know your speed at all times, stating that you weren't aware you were speeding is admitting to driving without due care, possibly reckless driving, if the officer wants to be an ass.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  It's just a question being asked by an armed person with tremendous legal authority to fuck you over in a thousand different ways and a well-documented history of abusing that power. It's entirely understandable that most people would be terrified when such a person is paying attention to them in particular. It's not "just a question". We can't ignore the power differential and how incredibly intimidating the cops are. Personally, I would prefer that we decide to address the deep, long-standing, and pervasive issues that our police forces present. But if we're not going to get that, at least we can get minor restrictions that somewhat reduce the problem.
heckraiser 3y ago
I had an interesting conversation in CA with a cop that pulled me over regarding the [then] plausible legalization of shrooms. Apparently, there had been quite a bit of discussion among their rank and a civilized perspective of the inevitability had been reached. Damn shame those representatives of our republic didn’t have the nerves to see that one through. Edit: pulled over for tail light, rest was just chatter ;)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mark38848 3y ago
Why is this worded as cannot rather than must not?
- ttymck 3y ago
  Because The Messenger is writing clickbait, not RFCs. The actual legislation explicitly requires the officers to do something, rather than specifically forbidding what the headline suggests. > This bill would, beginning on January 1, 2024, require a peace officer making a traffic or pedestrian stop, before engaging in questioning related to a criminal investigation or traffic violation, to state the reason for the stop, unless the officer reasonably believes that withholding the reason for the stop is necessary to protect life or property from imminent threat.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
takinola 3y ago
The reason the cops ask this question is to solicit a confession. Most people think that by admitting to a little infraction, the officer will see them as being reasonable and go easy on them. The conversations go something like this: Officer: "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Driver: "Sorry officer, I guess I was just going 5 miles over the speed limit" And there you just confessed to breaking the law and have no further defense for the speeding ticket. The correct answer is to just politely turn the question back to the officer ("Hi, how can I help you officer").
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  I was raised by my lawyer dad to believe this, but over time I've refined my beliefs and think it's generally wrong. If you're actually speeding or breaking some other traffic law and a cop pulls you over, you're likely going to get a ticket no matter what you say. The important question when determining how to handle it, then, is whether you are going to take the time and effort to fight the ticket. If you're busy, have plenty of money, or just generally are inclined to pay the speeding ticket and move on with your life, then refusing to answer the cop is probably suboptimal. Your justification for not confessing is that if you do so, you "have no further defense for the speeding ticket." If you're going to fight the ticket, you're right and I agree with you. If you're not going to fight it, this has no value whatsoever. If you're not going to fight it, then you shouldn't be optimizing for maintaining the best possible legal defense; rather, you should be optimizing for not getting the ticket in the first place. I believe that for most minor traffic offenses, you're better off confessing (and throwing in a relatable reason if you can pull it off). Going with the lawyerly response is, in my view, more likely to get you a ticket than going with, "I think you pulled me over because I was speeding, and I want to apologize for that. I just left a first date with a girl who I have a feeling is going to be my future wife and got too excited. It was irresponsible and I should know better." Cops are people too - taking responsibility and making yourself relatable just might get you out of the ticket.
  - travoc 3y ago
    Imagine getting pulled over for a malfunctioning tail light but then admitting to speeding for no good reason.
BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
> The only time officers are not required to state the reason for a traffic or pedestrian stop is if the officer decides it is necessary “to protect life or property from imminent threat.” Huh. But cops constantly believe that their lives are imminently under threat. It's the only legally safe explanation for why they're always reaching for their guns. Soooo...then what happens? Like what special circumstance is this exception imagining? Because it's hard to think of a scenario where withholding the information would lead to improved safety. "You have a broken tail light." "OH NO! HEARING THE WORDS 'TAIL LIGHT' TURNS ME VIOLENT!!!! DID YOU NOT SEE THE STICKER ON MY WINDOW TELLING YOU NOT TO SAY THOSE WORDS?! GRAAAHHHH!!!!"
- RevEng 3y ago
  Consider a chase where the officers finally manage to stop the vehicle. They don't need to tell the perpetrator why they pulled them over before telling them to put their hands above their head.
rufus_foreman 3y ago
Let's see if there are any free speech absolutists left.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  Can you explain what you mean? Do you think people acting on behalf of the state should be able to do whatever they want or something?
  - rufus_foreman 3y ago
    Do whatever they want or say whatever they want? A free speech absolutist would argue that they should be able to say whatever they want. I like free speech absolutists.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      You're going 10 over on the highway and a cop pulls you over. As he walks up to the car with his hand on his gun he screams "Give me all your fucking money" I mean he's not pointing his gun at you, he's not saying he's going to shoot you in the face, but my guess your free speech absolutist ass is totally crapping in your pants. Free speech absolutists can screw off just as much as the authoritarian should.
      - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        Could have sworn that free speech absolutists had a brandishing exception
      - rufus_foreman 3y ago
        >> Give me all your fucking money That's called the IRS. Should they be allowed to say that?
        krapp 3y ago
        Just challenge them to a vigorous debate on the facts.
Frivolous9421 3y ago
Can we get a law where cops mind their fucking business and leave you alone next
- echelon 3y ago
  If you're speeding, have a broken headlight, or are driving dangerously, then cops can serve as a reminder to fix yourself. We can't have everyone driving selfishly or disinterested in the safety of others.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hnbad 3y ago
    Most of the developed world has radar cameras that take a picture of your car and license plate if you go over the speed limit (plus a margin of error). Sometimes even if you pass a red light. No cops having to "fear for their lives" at random traffic stops, no inconvenienced/dead drivers. Just a flash to let you know you screwed up and eventually the person the car is registered to (and who is therefore liable) receives a letter with a pretty picture and a fine.
    - junofan 3y ago
      Well yeah they got a little carried away with authoritarianism last century. We export democracy, not gun rights.
    - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 3y ago
      I live in a major metropolitan city in the US. I am somehow always surprised whenever I see a car driving around with no license plates. It’s very common. I see one almost every day.
      - mynameisnoone 3y ago
        Yep. I drove around in a VW van for several years without plates or registration. (I was extremely poor then.) The other trick was, but it no longer works as much, to leave dealer plates on vehicles and never register them... this loophole has been closed in most US states by requiring registration with dealer vehicle sale. Already, it was often required for the new owner to register a vehicle integrated as part of a private party sale.
xnx 3y ago
Don't Talk to the Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE One of the few 45+ minute videos I've watched on YouTube.
- mynameisnoone 3y ago
  This was a classic. yt-dlp and skip the damn commercials.
gretch 3y ago
>do you know why I pulled you over? I never answer any question which speculates on why another human did a thing. It’s stupid and pointless, especially if the counter party is there. It’s basically saying “hey can you read my mind?” Even if I knew I was speeding or whatever, I would still answer no to this question, because I’m not going to speak on the officer’s motives. This question and all questions of the class “can you guess what I’m thinking?” Is always a game in any context.
- DANmode 3y ago
  Yes, and for better or for worse, what degree you play others' games dictates their cooperation with you. Game-theory.
- soupfordummies 3y ago
  I’m imagining just reading the full text of your comment, verbatim , as a response to the question. Lol
  - 000ooo000 3y ago
    "..uh, well.. anyway I noticed your taillight is out. Best get that looked at. Be safe and have a good day."
mynameisnoone 3y ago
M.O. of cops in California: If they pull you over, keep your trap shut because they're always writing a ticket. Even during "training", Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) will pull people over at random to "practice" writing them tickets without any real crime or infraction having been committed. Cops are liars, thieves, and a mafia occupying paramilitary force.
- threatofrain 3y ago
  Do you have a news article for this?
deathOFme 3y ago
[flagged]
bigdave1019 3y ago
[flagged]
bigdave1019 3y ago
[flagged]
bigdave1019 3y ago
[flagged]

54 points by jstarfish 3y ago

In any other state, just feign ignorance.

Sounds like somebody has a hot button. It's just a question. Answer "No I don't? How can I help you, officer?" A new law seems like overkill.

catchnear4321 3y ago
“don’t fuck with citizens you pull over before explaining why you pulled them over” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
wenebego 3y ago
"Woule you like me to shine your boots officer sir"
- echelon 3y ago
  I think some people are built to despise authority and social order. Some of this may have something to do with early childhood experiences or parenting. edit: obviously direct bad experiences, institutional treatment, discrimination, etc. also shape attitudes. I was thinking about folks who didn't fall into these groups, eg. wealthy European luxury car drivers, etc.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    Some people are built to assume trust in authority and that authority maintains social order. The truth is that there's always another side of the coin - every framing has it's opposite.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    It does seem pretty prevalent nowadays and ironically they almost never are as smart as they pretend to be.
    - hnbad 3y ago
      How is that ironic? Neither accepting nor rejecting "the social order" requires one to be smart. As always in politics the question isn't simply "what do you want" but "why do you want that".
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        It's ironic because there's an appearance of desiring the attention of passing readers via posturing. When the vast majority of such readers will, at best, spend a few seconds reading, and then dismiss it. If they write genuinely convincing, well elaborated, arguments, then it wouldn't be ironic. Because then there would be a reasonable expectation of some readers actually buying it, instead of, at best, joining in on the game.
  - antihipocrat 3y ago
    Agree, though for a lot of people authority and the prevailing social order has caused negative experiences their entire lives. I'm actually surprised there isn't more discontent.
  - discordance 3y ago
    That seems a bit dismissive to all that we know, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americans_killed_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_by_date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutal...
  - hnbad 3y ago
    Oh, authority is fine. For example, if you're a medical professional, I'll assume you have more knowledge in that domain and defer to your expertise unless I have reason to suspect you're talking out of your ass and hoping I won't notice. But the thing with medical professionals is that they can't hold a gun to your head if you disagree with them. Law enforcement on the other hand requires no expertise (often even being ignorant of the exact laws they're supposed to enforce) and its own claim to authority is by the barrel of a gun. You presumably don't accept the authority of a schoolyard bully, so why do you accept any "authority" only backed up by a threat of violence? And if you presumably seek relationships that see eye to eye in a romantic partner or your circle of friends, why would you accept a "social order" that puts any man below another, let alone so many below so few (even if you might happen to be among those few)? That just doesn't sound very sensible. I don't want to oppress others and I don't want to be oppressed either. A literal armed officer who can get away with killing me is the perfect representation of that so why would I have any warm feelings towards them? Especially when modern police training in the US often literally involves telling them they're the "sheepdogs despised by the sheep because the sheep mistake them for wolves". We know that familial violence can be cyclic with children suffering abuse by their parents normalising the abuse to cope with their experiences and then replicating the abuse when they themselves become parents. We know this takes conscious effort to break out of. We know that subjects of authoritarian governments will likewise often quickly adapt and rationalise the abuse they suffer. What makes you think you're the sane one rather than the victim who rationalizes the abusive system they can't escape their black iron prison?
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  [dead]
danielfoster 3y ago
Even better, "Because you wanted to."
- pixl97 3y ago
  "Because I'm an incredibly sexy person and you wanted a better look at me"
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    I've actually seen someone try this. They were cited for attempted bribery.
yieldcrv 3y ago
Admit speeding Admit not knowing you were speeding This is something that worries alot of people and they do irrational things not knowing to do, and the legislature is aiming to promote de-escalating for both civilians and officers
- NikkiA 3y ago
  You're supposed to know your speed at all times, stating that you weren't aware you were speeding is admitting to driving without due care, possibly reckless driving, if the officer wants to be an ass.
JohnFen 3y ago
It's just a question being asked by an armed person with tremendous legal authority to fuck you over in a thousand different ways and a well-documented history of abusing that power. It's entirely understandable that most people would be terrified when such a person is paying attention to them in particular. It's not "just a question". We can't ignore the power differential and how incredibly intimidating the cops are. Personally, I would prefer that we decide to address the deep, long-standing, and pervasive issues that our police forces present. But if we're not going to get that, at least we can get minor restrictions that somewhat reduce the problem.

heckraiser 3y ago

I had an interesting conversation in CA with a cop that pulled me over regarding the [then] plausible legalization of shrooms. Apparently, there had been quite a bit of discussion among their rank and a civilized perspective of the inevitability had been reached. Damn shame those representatives of our republic didn’t have the nerves to see that one through. Edit: pulled over for tail light, rest was just chatter ;)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mark38848 3y ago

Why is this worded as cannot rather than must not?

ttymck 3y ago
Because The Messenger is writing clickbait, not RFCs. The actual legislation explicitly requires the officers to do something, rather than specifically forbidding what the headline suggests. > This bill would, beginning on January 1, 2024, require a peace officer making a traffic or pedestrian stop, before engaging in questioning related to a criminal investigation or traffic violation, to state the reason for the stop, unless the officer reasonably believes that withholding the reason for the stop is necessary to protect life or property from imminent threat.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

takinola 3y ago

The reason the cops ask this question is to solicit a confession. Most people think that by admitting to a little infraction, the officer will see them as being reasonable and go easy on them. The conversations go something like this: Officer: "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Driver: "Sorry officer, I guess I was just going 5 miles over the speed limit" And there you just confessed to breaking the law and have no further defense for the speeding ticket. The correct answer is to just politely turn the question back to the officer ("Hi, how can I help you officer").

idopmstuff 3y ago
I was raised by my lawyer dad to believe this, but over time I've refined my beliefs and think it's generally wrong. If you're actually speeding or breaking some other traffic law and a cop pulls you over, you're likely going to get a ticket no matter what you say. The important question when determining how to handle it, then, is whether you are going to take the time and effort to fight the ticket. If you're busy, have plenty of money, or just generally are inclined to pay the speeding ticket and move on with your life, then refusing to answer the cop is probably suboptimal. Your justification for not confessing is that if you do so, you "have no further defense for the speeding ticket." If you're going to fight the ticket, you're right and I agree with you. If you're not going to fight it, this has no value whatsoever. If you're not going to fight it, then you shouldn't be optimizing for maintaining the best possible legal defense; rather, you should be optimizing for not getting the ticket in the first place. I believe that for most minor traffic offenses, you're better off confessing (and throwing in a relatable reason if you can pull it off). Going with the lawyerly response is, in my view, more likely to get you a ticket than going with, "I think you pulled me over because I was speeding, and I want to apologize for that. I just left a first date with a girl who I have a feeling is going to be my future wife and got too excited. It was irresponsible and I should know better." Cops are people too - taking responsibility and making yourself relatable just might get you out of the ticket.
- travoc 3y ago
  Imagine getting pulled over for a malfunctioning tail light but then admitting to speeding for no good reason.

BugsJustFindMe 3y ago

> The only time officers are not required to state the reason for a traffic or pedestrian stop is if the officer decides it is necessary “to protect life or property from imminent threat.” Huh. But cops constantly believe that their lives are imminently under threat. It's the only legally safe explanation for why they're always reaching for their guns. Soooo...then what happens? Like what special circumstance is this exception imagining? Because it's hard to think of a scenario where withholding the information would lead to improved safety. "You have a broken tail light." "OH NO! HEARING THE WORDS 'TAIL LIGHT' TURNS ME VIOLENT!!!! DID YOU NOT SEE THE STICKER ON MY WINDOW TELLING YOU NOT TO SAY THOSE WORDS?! GRAAAHHHH!!!!"

RevEng 3y ago
Consider a chase where the officers finally manage to stop the vehicle. They don't need to tell the perpetrator why they pulled them over before telling them to put their hands above their head.

rufus_foreman 3y ago

Let's see if there are any free speech absolutists left.

maxerickson 3y ago
Can you explain what you mean? Do you think people acting on behalf of the state should be able to do whatever they want or something?
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  Do whatever they want or say whatever they want? A free speech absolutist would argue that they should be able to say whatever they want. I like free speech absolutists.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    You're going 10 over on the highway and a cop pulls you over. As he walks up to the car with his hand on his gun he screams "Give me all your fucking money" I mean he's not pointing his gun at you, he's not saying he's going to shoot you in the face, but my guess your free speech absolutist ass is totally crapping in your pants. Free speech absolutists can screw off just as much as the authoritarian should.
    - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
      Could have sworn that free speech absolutists had a brandishing exception
    - rufus_foreman 3y ago
      >> Give me all your fucking money That's called the IRS. Should they be allowed to say that?
      - krapp 3y ago
        Just challenge them to a vigorous debate on the facts.

Frivolous9421 3y ago

Can we get a law where cops mind their fucking business and leave you alone next

echelon 3y ago
If you're speeding, have a broken headlight, or are driving dangerously, then cops can serve as a reminder to fix yourself. We can't have everyone driving selfishly or disinterested in the safety of others.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hnbad 3y ago
  Most of the developed world has radar cameras that take a picture of your car and license plate if you go over the speed limit (plus a margin of error). Sometimes even if you pass a red light. No cops having to "fear for their lives" at random traffic stops, no inconvenienced/dead drivers. Just a flash to let you know you screwed up and eventually the person the car is registered to (and who is therefore liable) receives a letter with a pretty picture and a fine.
  - junofan 3y ago
    Well yeah they got a little carried away with authoritarianism last century. We export democracy, not gun rights.
  - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 3y ago
    I live in a major metropolitan city in the US. I am somehow always surprised whenever I see a car driving around with no license plates. It’s very common. I see one almost every day.
    - mynameisnoone 3y ago
      Yep. I drove around in a VW van for several years without plates or registration. (I was extremely poor then.) The other trick was, but it no longer works as much, to leave dealer plates on vehicles and never register them... this loophole has been closed in most US states by requiring registration with dealer vehicle sale. Already, it was often required for the new owner to register a vehicle integrated as part of a private party sale.

xnx 3y ago

Don't Talk to the Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE One of the few 45+ minute videos I've watched on YouTube.

mynameisnoone 3y ago
This was a classic. yt-dlp and skip the damn commercials.

gretch 3y ago

>do you know why I pulled you over? I never answer any question which speculates on why another human did a thing. It’s stupid and pointless, especially if the counter party is there. It’s basically saying “hey can you read my mind?” Even if I knew I was speeding or whatever, I would still answer no to this question, because I’m not going to speak on the officer’s motives. This question and all questions of the class “can you guess what I’m thinking?” Is always a game in any context.

DANmode 3y ago
Yes, and for better or for worse, what degree you play others' games dictates their cooperation with you. Game-theory.
soupfordummies 3y ago
I’m imagining just reading the full text of your comment, verbatim , as a response to the question. Lol
- 000ooo000 3y ago
  "..uh, well.. anyway I noticed your taillight is out. Best get that looked at. Be safe and have a good day."

mynameisnoone 3y ago

M.O. of cops in California: If they pull you over, keep your trap shut because they're always writing a ticket. Even during "training", Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) will pull people over at random to "practice" writing them tickets without any real crime or infraction having been committed. Cops are liars, thieves, and a mafia occupying paramilitary force.

threatofrain 3y ago
Do you have a news article for this?

deathOFme 3y ago

[flagged]

bigdave1019 3y ago

[flagged]

bigdave1019 3y ago

[flagged]

bigdave1019 3y ago

[flagged]