View Single Post
Old 09-30-2012, 00:18   #28
Senior Member
TDC20's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 754
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
If units are availalbe, and are close-by enough, the agency will likely make an effort to correct the reported problem. I don't know if in your two situations, the LE agency had unit(s) available or close-by enough to intercept in a timely basis.
Nah, I just think it goes back to the fact that they really can't legally do anything based on one person's call. For example, someone could have been pissed off about being stuck behind a slow driver in the fast lane and figured they could call in a complaint on them about reckless driving and get them in trouble. There's no way to prove or disprove if a complaint is valid in that situation. So I understand that. But in this particular case, if the deputy didn't actually witness any reckless driving or other traffic infractions when he caught up to the MC, does he still have a reason to pull him over? If he doesn't observe some kind of illegal activity or traffic infraction, what is the point in pulling him over? I don't think he could cite the guy based on someone else's observation of an alleged traffic violation, could he?

Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
As for alleging the MC might have been traveling at over 100 mph, the driver probably probably was estimating. To a seasoned driver, estimating another car's traveling/passing speed really isn't that difficult.
Good point, and I know this is true because after spotting cars for about 15 min. using a LADAR, I was able to call the speed to within +/-1mph. I'm not saying that I could come back a week later, without having the LADAR to "calibrate" my observations and still do that, but I believe that training makes this possible within an acceptable window of error. Which brings up another thing that I hadn't considered...maybe the call was made by an off-duty officer in the RV. That would explain why the MC was pulled over based on the complaint.

Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
OK, so how do you know the MC didn't have the attituide, which the LEO picked up on?
I think it's pretty obvious that the MC had an attitude. In his mind, he was being detained for doing nothing illegal. The cop had an attitude, too. In the cop's mind, he considered the MC's evasion of his weapons question to be a threat to his safety. I hate to be a Monday morning quarterback, but when the guy said he didn't consent to any searches, the cop should have immediately replied with, "I'm not asking to search you, I'm asking if you have any weapons on you." Simply maintaining his question, instead of getting sidetracked, could have eliminated any misunderstandings, and may have prevented a lot of attitude on both sides.

Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
I don't wear a uniform but I love to people watch. Over the years I notice that very often, many, many people approached by those in uniforms immediately have attituides. The usual attituide is they're better than the uniformed person. If the uniform is a cop, people will exude an air of superiority, as in so why is this cop "bothering" me? Most will always have some snide remark like "why aren't you fighting real crime?" or something similar. God forbid if the uniform is a service person like the UPS guy or sanitation or even a building doorman.

What's my point? You may not believe it, but jackass people not in uniforms exist also.
I have worn a uniform, and I know first hand about people's prejudice based on their experiences or perceptions about someone who wore the same uniform. I have no doubt that cops get attitude pretty much everyday they are in uniform, and it has nothing to do with that particular cop. It's more of an attitude about the uniform and the authority. In most cases, it's not even a conscious thing, but more an element of human nature. It's the same element of human nature that fosters racism and anti-semitism.
A handgun is only good for fighting your way to a rifle.
TDC20 is offline   Reply With Quote