When it comes to criminals and law enforcement, it’s good common sense to curtail activities of the police rather than those of the criminal when there appears to be any form of conflict.
So sayeth Christopher L. Kutz, C.William Maxeiner Distinguished Professor of Law at University of California, Berkeley.
A Los Angeles Times Op-Ed piece on August 13th by Mr Kutz indicates:
For a safer America, curtail traffic stops
by Christopher Kutz
In one video after another this year, we’ve seen police stops of African American drivers go violently, terribly wrong. Think of Walter Scott, killed by a police officer in North Charleston, S.C., after a traffic stop for a broken tail light. Or Sandra Bland, pulled over for failure to signal a lane change, and after a confrontation with a Texas state trooper, hauled off to jail, where she died. Or Samuel Dubose, fatally shot by a University of Cincinnati police officer after being pulled over for a missing license tag.
They should never have been stopped by police at all. Nor should the vast majority of Americans pulled over in our national ritual of the traffic stop.
Right now I can the enamel flecking off the teeth of America’s motor and traffic officers nationally.
But minor traffic violations, by definition, pose no significant immediate threat and represent only a marginal increase in risk to road safety. On the other hand, every stop brings a substantial danger to the law enforcement officer: Car and motorcycle accidents and being struck by vehicles are a leading cause of death in the line of duty. Stops also produce a significant risk of escalation and confrontation, with tragic outcomes.
Stay with me. And please read the entire editorial for the full context. Mr Kutz is moving towards a point here. Let’s continue.
We do not need to accept the traffic stop as the price of public safety. I have driven many miles in other countries, and I have never seen a traffic stop of the sort that I witness nearly daily in California. While precise data are difficult to secure, Americans experience police traffic stops at a rate of about 9,900 per 100,000 citizens, according to a Justice Department survey. By contrast, government reports in England and Wales show traffic stops occur at a rate of only about 2,200 per 100,000; and in France, 2,760 per 100,000. My calculations for Spain, based on its raw number of citations, is about 3,000 per 100,000.
One reason for this divergence is that these countries, like many others, enforce their speeding laws primarily through radar systems that automatically generate tickets. Red-light cameras also account for a significant proportion of fines. The benefit of camera systems is not only that they permit more extensive enforcement of laws against genuinely dangerous driving behavior, but they do so without racial bias. No camera has ever Tased or shot an unarmed driver.
Those pesky humans, let’s just remove them from the equation. Further, since we’re eliminating the traffic stop, we’d best eliminate the police pursuit altogether. In order to enable that aspect, we could logically save more governmental money by doing what European forces do, and that’s to downsize police vehicles. Ford Explorers, the Dodge Charger and Chevrolet Impala, all with 300+ hp, could be replaced by the Ford Fiesta, Chevrolet Spark or Sonic. Fleets could also include the Toyota Prius or Nissan Leaf.
Mr Kutz argues that we are “out of step” with other nations and, because of this, we need to revamp our foundational policing models. Let us not forget that our US Constitution and Bill of Rights are likewise out of step with other nations.
Now the real but unspoken goal of Mr Kutz: the gradual elimination of a serious portion of the number of law enforcement officers across the nation, to be replaced by technology — a semi RoboCop scenario mixed with Chappie and OCP (or perhaps ideally not replaced at all). But if the “educational elite” think they’ve seen pushback, just wait until each corner features a camera and tangent aspects of roadway are festooned with radar cams for speed.
There’s a saying: “those who make enemies of the police had better make friends with the criminals.”
I think perhaps I may have retired at just the proper time.
BZ
It seems to me that the traffic stop is not the real cause of problems, but something even more on point. The black person. As a former police officer, I have engaged in hundreds, if not thousands of traffic stops, and as a whole, they have been uneventful. The ones that have been eventful and of note, typically involved a black person. I can safely say that if I looked at just my noteworthy traffic stops, 9 out of 10 involved a black person.
So, it is not the traffic stop that is causing the problem, but the black person. The traffic stop is simply an event. The catalyst of things going bad is determined by the subjects. Blaming traffic stops for things going bad is like blaming a blender for making a bad milkshake. It’s not the blender’s fault if someone throws catshit in the mix.
So, by that rational, black thugs who refuse to obey the law, and have a huge chip on their shoulders, are the catshit of milkshakes.
So, lets ban the catshit…not the blender.
As a fellow officer, retired, the traffic stop is a tool for cops just as the car is a tool for criminals. A vehicle stop is where I was involved in my fatal shooting of a suspect in the 70s, where he exited the vehicle to shoot at myself and my partner. The traffic stop is a tool for the cop and, until unlawful, should be utilized as same in conjunction with probable cause.
BZ
I agree completely that it was a tool. I did not do my traffic stops for the sake of traffic, but other crimes that were more worthy of my time. Of course, it all depended on my phase in life. There was a point where DUI was my thing. Before that, it was to get at the drugs, and a time before that, going after drivers of unregistered cars, with no insurance, and a suspended DL. If you had any two of the three, you were either walking from there, or I would drive you back to my place.
To be honest, without the traffic stop, busting bad guys would be a good deal tougher. This idiot here stating we should no longer do traffic stops would see crime levels rise dramatically. Imagine if thugs knew that there vehicles had now become sanctuary places. I mean, after all, the whole sanctuary thing is working well in cities…why not expand it to all vehicles? Idiot.
One day, the public is going to get the police force they demand, and they will be damn sorry when they do. The police, as you know, will do only what the public lets them do. And with my former dept, it was actually run by the mayor’s office. What the mayor wanted, the chief did. And the mayor never served a day in uniform, military or law enforcement. And I am positive you know how that went. It was one of the main reasons we had the attrition problem that we did and guys were leaving there to go to the sheriff’s office, or anywhere…with many of them willingly breaking their contracts and paying the city the penalty. They agreed it was money well spent to get out of the hell that was created by upper management.
So, let’s ban traffic stops, put cameras and GPS on the officers, not back them up when they do as they were trained, make them personally liable in civil court, Monday morning quarterback them for everything, put them in IA for every single infraction, no matter how slight, look for anyway possible to charge them as criminals, and you will find a police force that cares about nothing but their own ass and that of their brethren, and it will not be long before every city looks like baltimore.
You are right, the job is not like it used to be. But of course, when I was a rookie, I heard the older guys say the same thing. I can only imagine the shit cops got away with a hundred years or more ago. Probably no unlike John C. Reilly’s cop character in Gangs of New York. Oh the fun it must have been then. I suppose twenty years from now, today’s rookies will say the same things.
I’ve said for many years that areas and communities get the police force they deserve. True then and true now. Now that my investment has ended, a part of me couldn’t care less. The greater part of me wishes I could still influence and take care of my troops.
BZ
stop crime, legalize everything!
someone needs to remind Mr. Kutz to take his meds
When faced with decisions involving authority, hamper authority. Which I have no problem with as long as the hampering involves all forms of government within the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. But no, this comes for the benefit of criminals. Here are your Leftist answers.
BZ
Really sad parents pay thousands of dollars to be educated by complete idiots.
Interesting how “American Exceptionalism” is quickly discarded and replaced by “what other countries do” when it helps the Narrative. Personally, I don’t give a flying f^&k what they do in other countries. Don’t live there and don’t want to live there.
You said it. If everywhere else is better, well go there. You have an option of living in a social run nanny state with cradle to grave care, no responsibility for anything you do, and really high taxes or here in the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE. If you turn America into a replica of you shithole, WE will not have a choice.
It’s like some idiot who thinks applies are better for you than oranges, and forces everyone else to eat only apples. Never mind that they preferred oranges, as they are too stupid to appreciate how great apples are and besides, you know what is best for everyone. Soon, all we will have a choice of is apples or apples. Regardless of the fact that you HATE apples, and WANT oranges.
And, when you finally realize that you have a choice of apples or nothings, and start eating them, you find out that all of them are rotten, full of worms, cost way more than oranges, and you can only have one every two weeks.
Is that about right? Or am I simply comparing apples to oranges?
Agree with WSF… And screw what Europe does… If they jumped off the bridge, would we ‘logically’ follow? According to this wingnut, yes… sigh
Oh so true. To Leftists what other countries do should have an influence on what we do. There are those on SCOTUS who believe this as well: Kennedy, Ginsberg.
BZ