The Glade 4.0

My point is that you calling him a "tool" is a pointless criticism. In fact, it's not a cricticism at all. You were being just as much of a "tool" as he was. You started of saying he "got all pissy" with you because you were laying in the grass. I don't buy it. "got all pissy" means nothing; as far as I can tell it's just a result of your hypersensitive reaction to speaking to a cop.



In other words, "fishing" means nothing more than "he found a violation and cited me for it, and I ahve no good reason why he shouldn't have but I want to ***** anyhow". This fromt he guy that complains about getting butt hurt.



And whose fault is that? Stop breaking the law. Evidently, cops being "douchebags" with you is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You don't take care of minor **** like your license plate, he comes over to talk to you, you start acting like an *** because you think all cops are douchebags until proven otherwise, so he decides to find a reason to give you a ticket. Which you, legally, deserved.

Fix your **** attitude. I'm not buying this story of a lifetime of victimization. You evidently bring it on yourself. I'm not basing that on just your treatment of cops either; evidently you like giving store clerks a hard time over "personal information", and you like **** with people's business because you didn't get your way. Yes, going out there and making your announcement to the hayride line was a dick thing to do. You weren't promised your money back if the line was too long. You just didn't get your way, so on your personal sense of justice or what the **** ever, you went and **** with his customers. Was he being a jerk? Maybe so, but you just went and acted like an *** in return and depending on exactly what the disturbing the peace law was, you might very well have been disturbing the peace. You were definitely skirting the line.



In other words, fishing is just your excuse to blame the cop when you get caught not taking care of a respoinsibility.



You said the exact opposite right here:



So which is it?



It's hilarious that you tell people to learn to read when you can't remember what you wrote:



You said he "can't stand his authority being questioned" then you turn around and insist you're "getting information". Who, exactly, is questioning his authority then? As far as I know, we're talking about a conversation with 2 participants: you and the cop. You can't even make up your mind.



Since there is no discernable standard, and "don't go fishing" amounts to "don't give Arathain tickets for stuff he personally doesn't approve of" that's ridiculous. Your definition of "douchebag" is incredibly self-serving.



Then you're wrong. You contradict yourself repeatedly and then screech "learn to read!" when it's pointed out.



I didn't say "Asking him a question" is rude. I said asking him a confrontational question that implies he is doing something wrong is rude. Your stated reason, "I'm just gathering information!" is total bullshit. It's a schoolyard level excuse. You're not trying to determine what the matter at hand is, you're trying to determine what kind of cop they are, because you're all worried about being "hassled" or "**** with" evidently because there's always some **** you haven't taken care of. You're looking for a reason to get pissed off about their conduct so if you do get a ticket you can comfort yourself that it wasn't really your fault, they were "fishing".



Yes, you are. You just said, you think they answer the way they do because they don't like their authority challenged. Evidently then, you must be challenging their authority. Asking why they want your name IS challenging their authority, and its silly because they are asking. Not telling. They don't need authority to do it. You're asking a question that clearly indicates you suspect they are doing something wrong simply by asking you.

As for your cited response, the first part is perfectly fine. He DOES have authority in whatever the matter is at hand. "You have to do anything I say" isn't, and it's a silly thing for him to say.



Except you are. Otherwise, where do you get the idea that he's angry that you're challenging him? You said that; I quoted it. You are all over the place. He's mad at having his authority challenged, but you're just asking a question? That doesn't make any sense.

It came from your reference to "Having authority over them" (the person speaking to the cop). You keep trying to change what I'm saying to mean that. I'm talking about authority to investigate. That's different.



So you're challenging his lack of authority? What the **** are you talking about?



Except that you are. You just said that's why he's getting angry or butt hurt, or whatever.



I'm not a cop here. I don't enforce the law on the Glade. I'm just another poster. Your metrics include this idea about "fishing" which basically amounts to you having immunity for certain violations in return for you not considering the cop a douchebag.

That's a shitty metric.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

1) **** up your day =/= **** up your life. Quit moving the goalposts
2) If the arrest was, in fact, illegal, he has options through the civil courts to address that. If he didn't avail himself of them, that's his problem. Has he filed any lawsuits? He said, right at the end of the video "this is going to court". Did it?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sorry, I regularly say "**** my life" when something bad happens and that's the context in which I posted it. Also, if you checked out the article, the man is indeed suing as he should. It was most certainly an illegal arrest. Doesn't make the actions of the cop any more justifiable, just because the guy could get back at him. How many people do you think are sitting in jail right now because a cop **** them over and they had no way to defend themselves? I know you'll answer none, but we all know that's a joke.

Anyway,

I would hope that he would be more professional than that.

You try pulling over that many people consistently and getting the same "I'm playing dumb" game and see how long your patience holds out.

Yet, they never seem to tire of the inane "Do you know why I stopped you?"



"**** your life up for a bit" = "**** up your day"

No goalpost moving needed.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I agree with this. It actually is an inane question, and police officers should never ask that. You should state why the person was stopped up front.

I don't know why some officers insist on asking this; I can only guess they are trying to determine if the person knew what they were doing wrong and did it anyhow, or doesn't have a clue, but I don't really see the relevance. It wastes time making the motorist play guessing games.



Ah, ok. It's just melodramatic.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

When I took a defensive driving course one time, I was told not to answer that particular question because it could be considered a confession. The guy who told me this was an ex-cop who was telling the class how to get out of a speeding ticket. So infer what you want from that.

_________________

I suppose it could, although as a practical matter it's irrelevant, unless your state has significantly different laws. The officer has to have observed the violation himself in the first place and be able to testify to it in court. Trying to get someone with a confession would be redundant; if he hadn't already seen you do it, he wouldn't be writing the ticket.

This is why you can't call the police and demand they cite someone for a violation you observed, either. The person who wrote the ticket has to have either observed it directly, or be in direct verbal contact with another officer as they observe it (i.e. over a radio)

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE: It's very clear that it's pointless to discuss this with you. You fit the mold, and because of this, you cannot or will not see another point of view. That's fine. If you think it's disrespectful/challenging/rude/whatever to be questioned while performing your job, and think it's ok to stay on someone until you find something wrong you can nail them on, then we are at an impasse.

These behaviors are beyond unacceptable to me, and many, many others. Regardless of reality, I still view the police mission as “protect and serve”. This is a noble and critical mission. The sad part is, I really feel the “protect” is handled fairly well, but so much damage is done with relations over the “serve”. With so many interactions a day, I cannot expect cops to be at the top of their game at all times. I really do offer a lot of leeway and flexibility in my interactions with them, at most times, for that reason.
However, the general attitude that these behaviors are within bounds is setting the bar for performance entirely too low. I encourage you to reevaluate your methods and procedures to develop a better dynamic between yourself and the people you serve.
In the hopes of achieving better understanding, (I feel you MUST be misunderstanding because I still hold out hope that you do not really believe this behavior is acceptable) I’ll address the following one more time:

A cop has the authority to ask a question, of course. We have agreed on this throughout. I do not have to answer, we have agreed on this throughout. I have explained why I am hesitant to give the cop any personal information without knowing what it is used for (the concern being that not so infrequently, they turn around and use this information in a way that is not in my best interest). Now, I have the right to ask him a question, we have agreed on this throughout. He has a right not to answer (though I think he must in some situations, but not in this example), we have agreed on this throughout.
Now, I have stated on multiple occasions why I don’t just turn around and walk away when a cop asks for personal information. To recap, if the reason he wants the information, in my view will help him do his job, AND will not harm me in any way, then I want to help him. Actually, scratch that – the only real metric is “will this harm me”. I may feel it doesn’t help him with his job, he may feel it does – I don’t care, so long as it will not harm me.
So we have established the reason for me questioning him. This is not a challenge to his authority to ask me questions. It is gathering information, so that I can determine whether to answer his question or not.
As for my quoted statement above, I am not being contradictory. There is no logical reason for an officer to get upset over being asked “why”. The only reason I can come up with is that he somehow feels I am disrespecting him or challenging his authority by not just automatically answering his question. This is a common belief among authoritarians in that they should not be questioned. I must admit feeling that way when my kid doesn’t do as I ask. I feel, as an authority figure, that he should jump to and do it immediately. The difference here is that I am well within my right not to answer, and my child does not have the right to disobey. There is no authority being challenged, because the officer does not have the authority to make me respond. A LOT of cops feel like they are involved in this parent/child or coach/player relationship and respond angrily to being questioned. You have alluded to feeling this way yourself. It is not right, and an angry response to being questioned is inappropriate.
Getting back to the quote above, I am not questioning his authority, I am gaining sufficient information to determine how to respond. His having the view that I am somehow questioning his authority is the only explanation I can come up with as to why this would upset someone. No sane individual gets upset simply because someone wants more information. This view is furthered by the frequent response of “why are you questioning me?!”, or similar, that cops often answer with.

Which is my hope as well. This is largely my point. Being asked stupid questions, or in my example, to provide an explanation, is not cause for an officer to be rude or unprofessional.

And no, the number of people he pulled over that day that asked a dumb question is not justification. It's a reason, and understandable, but the 20th motorist of the day is not responsible for the other 19.

It's not that I think it's ok. IT IS ok. The only thing it's violating are some personal rules about what's cool for the cops to do and what's not. Society says that, through the courts and the legislature. It is not "too low a bar" that the police are not following some arbitrary rule about not "fishing" especially from someone who can't seem to take care of responsibilities like getting a plate renewed. I guess it's "bullshit" and you can just blow that off because you're special and get to decide what rules you'll follow, just like you can go disrupt someone's business because they didn't give you a refund when you wanted one.

As for the rest of this, your behavior sucks. Your attitude sucks. You evidently treat people at their places of business even worse than the cops. I'm not buying this innocent game of "but I'm just trying to get information!" Bullshit. You're fishing for a reason to find fault with the cop's behavior.

You may have had one or two genuinely bad experiences with cops, but most of your pompous blathering in this last little post of yours can be summed up thus "I don't like it". Couching it in a lot of language about protect and serve" and "I hope you'll have a better dynamic" and so forth doesn't change that. Most people in this country have no problem with law enforcement, so all your attempts to pretend that police behavior is causing some sort of systemic image problem is just wishful thinking on your part. 54% of people in this country have a high or very high level of trust in the police, and another 35% trust them at an average level, compared to other professions, according to Gallup.

You know what else is very telling? The fact that you keep mentioning that you "know" some good cops, but all the bad ones seem to just happen to be ones that are dealing with you on the street. The common element in all these problems is you. You have an exceedingly large number of bad cop stories. I'm quite sure one or two of them actually even do represent very bad police behavior, and I'm sure several others represent less than optimal. However, I am not buying for one instant that you're conduct is as above reproach, especially based on how you treat people at their places of business.

Here's a clue: Real life isn't Jersey Shore. Other people, cops or not, do not have to conform to your personal rules about acceptable conduct. You (and they) have to conform to those commonly accepted by society at large.

Here's another clue: I never in any way stated that the coach/athlete or parent/child relationship was the same as or analogous to an officer/citizen relationship. I used them as examples of when "why" questions are a challenge. The different natures of the authority relationship in those situations are completely irrelevant. Quit telling people to "learn to read." You obviously don't read yourself. Or maybe you just can't understand the difference.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It is never cool for employees to be rude or disrespectful to their employers.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

/sigh I'll bite. WTF are you talking about? Show me where I treated someone badly. I searched my posts for "refund", nothing came up. I don't recall any of this, so... quote please.



Wrong. Of the 4 officers I know fairly well personally, when 2 talk about their job they seem to genuinely care about the people the serve, 1 doesn't really talk about it much but I would be surprised if he was a prick, and the fourth brags about being a prick. So you are mistaken. I also mentioned that I've met quite a few good, professional, polite officers in the field.

Anyway, like I said. You only appear to be able to look out, not in on this, appear to think such ridiculous behavior is acceptable, and I think we are at an impasse.

I already stated a few examples, more than once. Didn't you read? You were acting like a total *** at the hayride. "Oh, won't give me my money back? I'll fix him!" If I had a recording of the actual incidents in question, I probably could more easily, but since you want to decide who's a docuhebag and who's not based on experiences filtered through the lens of your perception, that makes it rather difficult.



No, I'm not "Wrong". You're just adding information you didn't give out before. Which is very convenient, since we're discussing, for some reason, your personal experiences.

I don't even buy that one "brags about being a prick" since quite frankly, your assessment of what a "prick" is sucks.



You're just begging the question. It's "ridiculous" only in your personal estimation, then complain that I accept ridiculous behavior that's ridiculous because it's obviously ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? Well, becuase they're being douchebags! Why are they being douchebags? Well, because they're engaging in behavior that's obviously ridiculous! I mean, obviously they should know not to get butt-hurt! That means standards are too low! Only a douchebag would do that! Oh, how do we know? Well, because it's clearly ridiculous!

Even your valid complaint, that officers should not get in an argument by ***** that you asked them a question (even if your question is passive aggressive and rude), is minor. Did they violate your rights? no? Good, we already agreed they shouldn't. Did they violate standards of professional conduct? As far as I can tell no; complaining that you asked a question they don't like is less than optimal behavior, but hardly a violation of any standard I'm aware of as long as they weren't using foul or abusive language or making illegal threats or anything. Your complainst center around them getting "butt hurt". So? THAT's your big issue with the cops? It's no wonder you meet so many "pricks" since you're that hypersensitive. Or is it them "fishing"? Guess what? That's conducting an investigation. As long as they didn't illegally detain you or in other ways violate your rights.. tough ****. That's not being a douchebag. The fact that you think there ought to be some sort of limitation on them to prevent them from "digging up" something you've done wrong is hilarious. What's even more hilarious is that you think there's a problem with MY attitude just because you attached a pejorative like "fishing" to it!

Yes, we're at am impasse. You're trying to argue about your personal experiences, selectively doling out facts about them, then complaining I'm "wrong" by going based on what you said about them when you conveniently come up with OTHER facts you hadn't previously mentioned, and your complaints about douchebags amount to A) that they gave you a ticket after passing some imaginary line in your mind where they're fishing and B) that they might react to your question in a way that's less than ideal, but hardly a violation of your rights, the law, or even standards of conduct.

That's why we're at an impasse. You have a problem with cops. That's pretty much it, and you're trying to blame that on everyone but yourself.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Um, yes, I read. Did you? I stated in that example that everyone was polite. We were polite, and so was she. She didn't give out refunds, which we questioned, but accepted. She gave us little tickets we could use for admission at a later time, which we thought was fine. Neither we nor she had any issue, and neither did the cop that was standing there. It wasn't until after we were walking out and told some of the folks in line about the second line that the cop had an issue.

This is all as written. So yes, reading is a good idea. As for other "examples" of how I treated a person at their business poorly, I have not seen any. Please quote.



THANK YOU. FINALLY. I'm glad you agree with this, it makes me feel much better about you as a cop. We'll work on the fishing issue another time.

Have you been reading? That's what I said was the dick thing to do from the very beginning. It also may very well ahve been disturbing the peace, depending on the law in wherever you were.



I've explained several times that asking some store clerk "why" he's asking you for your name or phone number is ******* behavior too. What do you mean, quote? Do you not remember saying that you do that?



What do you mean, finally? I said this at least twice before.

Let me clear this up for you a little bit more:

It's almost always rude to ask another adult "why" they are doing something, or they want some piece of information from you, personal or not. That's not specific to cops. When you ask "why" in that manner (i.e. bout their actions, not about some abstract matter like "why do birds fly south in winter) you are questioning whether they are behaving properly by doing so, because that's the question you ask when you do catch someone doing something improper, or want to criticize behavior. It's talking to them like they're a kid, and incidentally, that's why teenagers do it back to adults; that's a way they try to put themselves on our level. Depending on your tone it can be exceedingly rude, it's possible to say it in a tone and manner such that you're going beyond merely rude and accusing them of wrongdoing just b asking it. There's a few other non-why questions that can rise tot his level like "what are you doing that for?" but "why" is the most universal word in provoking this reaction - from anyone; it has very little to do with being a cop. At the very least, asking "why" is not merely asking a question, it's a demand for an answer.

Now, there are exceptions. To stick with cops, if you're getting arrested it's not rude to ask "why am I getting arrested?" because you have a right to demand that information, and the question is essentially understood as "what am I getting arrested for?" and the officer has a duty to let you know. There's other examples, but that's the general idea. Generally, it's far less rude to ask a person who actually is answerable to you "why", especially if you catch them doing something they know they shouldn't (by which, I don't mean criminal behavior necessarily; catching them making a bonehead move around the office would be just as good).

Now hopefully it's clear; I don't object to asking the cops "why do you need to know my name?" because they're cops, I object to that question asked of anyone because it's rude. Obviously if they're already being outright rude to you or you have a reason to suspect they're doing something wrong (a positive reason, not just a general suspicion that they could do something wrong) or if they're attempting to demand your name int he first place when not entitled to it that's different, but I'm talking about a request for your name that is, even if not exquisitely polite, at least not downright rude or hostile. Don't imagine the cop here, imagine a firefighter or.. whoever makes you feel secure.

Ok, now, let's firmly understand, the cop (now you can go back to the cop) in this hypothetical is not demanding your name under any real or imaginary authority. He's asked for it within the boundaries of what, legally, is a consensual encounter. He's not using any authority at all. Any citizen could ask you the same question. You are free to leave. You are free to ask him to leave (both of you are in a place you have a legal right to be in this example) and certainly free to simply say "I'd rather not speak with you." This conversation is, legally speaking, citizen to citizen, one of those citizens just happens to be in a uniform and out looking for criminals.

We got that completely clear here, right? No authority whatsoever is either being claimed or exercised. You don't have to do anything. Good, we're on the same page. Oh I forgot one other thing: The cop knows this. He was clearly instructed on what's a consensual encounter, and tested on it. It's not a hard concept either. Even if he can't explain it very well, he knows perfectly well that he's talking to someone consensually. All cops know about consent, because lawfully granted consent essentially allows us to do whatever we want. Sometimes hilariously, but that's another story.

Because of that, and because of what I stated about the "why" question earlier, when you ask "why do you need to know my name?", you're doing one of two things. You may not even realize you're doing this, but you are.

A) You're questioning his authority, and not in a "do you have authority to do this?" way, but rather you're questioning authority that isn't even relevant to what he's doing. Essentially, you're questioning his authority in general and for no apparent reason. The question doesn't express concern over personal information, either because while a name is technically personal, it's only technically. It;s not sensitive information. Lots of people share the same name, so a name alone really can't even pin your identity down. If he'd asked for your social security number, that would be different.

B) Let's say you're not questioning his authority. In that case, you're questioning his motives. Again, the connotations of a why question are that you're A) demanding the answer and B) that the person you're demanding from is doing something wrong, or at least you suspect they are. Not, "he could **** with me so I need to be wary" but rather it conveys "I think he is going to do something to me I won't like, and that he isn't permitted to do."

I know you're going to want to say "that's ridiulous!" but that is, in fact, how "why" is used, every day, in our society. "Why" has been elevted to an art form of begging the question all its own. It's a way to demand an answer of someone and putting them on the defensive by assuming they are doing something wrong with the connotations of the question itself. That's everywhere. I hear people doing this daily. It happens at every school board meeting when the local busybody mom wants do cause a scene. I'm not just making this up; I see people ask "Why" of other people all the time, and the reaction, both verbal and physical, is both common and practically involuantary.

So, quite frankly, your complaints about the cops getting "butt hurt" over a perceived "questioning of his authority" ring pretty hollow to me. Again, that doesn't mean he should get in an argument, but frankly, getting upset because someone else disrespects you in that fashion is completely understandable, because it's not disrespecting your authoritah - none is being exercised. It's disrespecting your integrity. And no, the fact that some cops may be dishonest is not an excuse for that. Not any more than it's acceptable to treat all blacks like a bunch of criminals, or all Republicans as crazed bible-thumpers.

If you're really just asking for information, there are far less hostile way to ask the same question that are asking about the matter at hand. Like I said, RD's approach is a lot more polite than what you've described.

As to "fishing".. that's just silly. Sorry, it just is. Would you feel better if he'd just walked over to your jeep and wrote the ticket without even talking to you? You'd have gotten the same ticket. Or if you just got pulled over on the road? I'd have done either of those. If I saw you laying on the ground in the park, the only reason I'd even walk over and talk to you is to make sure you didn't have a heart attack or something. I wouldn't even worry about the Jeep. After that, I;d walk over to the Jeep and start writing a ticket to the owner, which I'd know from running the plates. Oh, that was you? Really? I thought it was someone else out here walking or something. Sorry about your luck. Oh, it's only a week? You've been working double shifts? I suggest getting your plates renewed tomorrow, then go to court with that documentation. I can't speak for the magistrate but generally, if you show you took care of it, he likes that. He might even drop the charges entirely.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah, so, I disagree with just about everything you've said here. Even your underlying assumptions. I've long held that the position attracts certain personalities and viewpoints, which makes sense of course, and that is consistent with what I see here.

Needless to say, I wouldn't enjoy being a cop.

Not surprisingly the ONLY way an authoritarian can see someone asking them questions is as some sort of personal attack or insult.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Well, thankfully, since you've got no background whatsoever is psychiatry, psychology, or sociology, we are in no more danger of your amateur attempts to classify personalities being classified as valid science than we are of your attempts to complain that the failure of the police to adhere to your pointless and self-serving standards of "not being a douchebag" becoming either law or public policy.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."