Pulled over driving Model S

[brianman]

So let me parse your words for clarity... "If you want to be unique... in this case drive a unique vehicle... you simply have to accept that you'll be... pulled over..."

If uniqueness falls in the realm of skin color, or gender, or any number of hot button attributes then a lawsuit might be quite profitable indeed. "Vehicle brand profiling" isn't a hot button yet, but who knows when that will change.

If you profiled "crappy old trucks" in Arizona, the immigration drama would probably unfold on the news for weeks.

 

[Rockster]

OK, after reading 30 pages of comments, I must chime in here...

Police officers in our society are armed authority figures with the ability to detain, arrest, injure, or kill. Furthermore, while not beyond oversight, an officer involved in a physical confrontation, including the use of deadly force, almost certainly begins any subsequent investigation in a more defensible position than the private citizen with whom the altercation took place. Any rhetoric about holding police to a higher standard or scrutinizing their actions without bias may sound good on paper, but when a police officer interacts physically with a private citizen, the deck is clearly stacked in favor of the badge.

This means that when a police officer hits his lights and siren and asks you to pull your car over, it can never be equated with an innocent inquiry from a fellow private citizen. The officer's actions carry the subtext of armed authority that cannot be denied. Because the "request" to pull over is accompanied with the very real message that ignoring the request, using the wrong words or body language when protesting the stop, or even twitching towards the glove box in what the officer can later claim was a "threatening manner" can get you handcuffed, arrested, or shot, the interaction becomes very different than Joe Citizen saying "Hey, cool car! Will you tell me about it?"

No matter the wrapping, no matter the innocent intentions of the officer, and no matter how polite he is, the reality here is that an armed agent of the government, authorized to arrest you if you don’t comply or to kill you if he feels threatened, has just ordered you to stop what you're doing and indulge his desire to know about your personal business, in this case, your car. Stopping and responding with a "no thank you, I'd rather not talk with you today,” even if successful, still means that you’ve been detained and are now asking permission to continue about your business, hoping that your choice of words or your body language don’t threaten or offend, lest you face an arrest for disorderly conduct.

As soon as a person puts on a gun and a badge, the inherent disparity in authority means that every interaction with the public carries very different implications than two private citizens chatting. Part of a law enforcement professional's job is to recognize the subtext that accompanies their authority and always act accordingly. A traffic stop to check out a cool car just plain wrong (and creepy).

And if you’re okay with being detained so he can check out your Tesla, how could you possibly complain if he becomes intrigued by your bumper sticker and pulls you over to question you about your political views or your religion or your sexual orientation? Or if he just decides you’re cute, with his innocent request for you to pull over carrying the ever present threat of arrest unless you comply? Or if he stops your child at at the mall and asks her to explain the shirt that she’s wearing, simply because he finds it interesting?

No matter how you dice it, he’s still saying “Stop, citizen, under threat of arrest and with the risk inherent in our interaction, and answer my questions.”

The right to make that demand must never be abused.

 

[Doug_G]

Good points, Rockster, but people are people. You are right that it's wrong for them to stop you, but the reality is that people get bored and curious, and they probably hope that you might appreciate their interest. I know in that situation I'd be polite and take the opportunity to educate. Better to turn it into a positive experience than a negative one.

A friend of ours, who happens to be a rather attractive woman, has gotten out of traffic tickets more times than she can count. That's fair too, right?

 

[Rockster]

Good points, Rockster, but people are people. You are right that it's wrong for them to stop you, but the reality is that people get bored and curious, and they probably hope that you might appreciate their interest. I know in that situation I'd be polite and take the opportunity to educate. Better to turn it into a positive experience than a negative one.

A friend of ours, who happens to be a rather attractive woman, has gotten out of traffic tickets more times than she can count. That's fair too, right?

I'll readily admit that the majority of these instances are borne of positive intentions. Most police officers are really good people who are fighting the good fight. That's not at all the issue to me, though. On principle, an unjustified detainment is wrong and we should expect, above all, those whom we trust with the lawful authority to detain, arrest, injure, or kill us, to operate strictly within bounds.

 

[AmpedUP]

@Rockster, I couldn't have said it any better...and am alarmed at any acceptance of such "demonstrations of power" on any level.

 

[jerry33]

Perhaps if they were paid more than a subsistence wage and had a real career path like the RCMP in Canada. There a city or town can choose to use Mounties for their police force or they can recruit and train their own--typically only large cities do this. It works really well because the Mounty gets moved around as part of his or her career path and there is consistency of enforcement.

 

[NoMoGas]

I made this and posted it here http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...istration-causing-you-issues-This-should-help so hopefully it will help. As a former dealer I ran into this issue often, but this cleared it up for my customers. No need to use it in California, but out of state law enforcement seeing anything at all where a license plate goes will go a long way to helping to head off a tourist delay... I mean an official stop by a law enforcement officer curious about a Tesla.. I mean ensuring your car isn't stolen. :biggrin:

 

[brianman]

OK, after reading 30 pages of comments, I must chime in here...

Please continue to chime in on other things. Great post.

- - - Updated - - -

A friend of ours, who happens to be a rather attractive woman, has gotten out of traffic tickets more times than she can count. That's fair too, right?

Nope. So you're saying two wrongs should make us feel better? Or that they balance out? "Bad behavior excuses other bad behavior"? I guess I'm missing it....

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps if they were paid more than a subsistence wage and had a real career path like the RCMP in Canada.

I missing the relevance. If I'm underpaid, I get a pass for violating the law and the rights of citizens?

 

[Doug_G]

Nope. So you're saying two wrongs should make us feel better? Or that they balance out? "Bad behavior excuses other bad behavior"? I guess I'm missing it....

Yes, I've noticed that you frequently miss sarcasm.

 

[brianman]

Yes, I've noticed that you frequently miss sarcasm.

Depends on the source. (Not a critique; I just read some people better.)

 

[Gear]

OK, after reading 30 pages of comments, I must chime in here...

Police officers in our society are armed authority figures with the ability to detain, arrest, injure, or kill. Furthermore, while not beyond oversight, an officer involved in a physical confrontation, including the use of deadly force, almost certainly begins any subsequent investigation in a more defensible position than the private citizen with whom the altercation took place. Any rhetoric about holding police to a higher standard or scrutinizing their actions without bias may sound good on paper, but when a police officer interacts physically with a private citizen, the deck is clearly stacked in favor of the badge.

This means that when a police officer hits his lights and siren and asks you to pull your car over, it can never be equated with an innocent inquiry from a fellow private citizen. The officer's actions carry the subtext of armed authority that cannot be denied. Because the "request" to pull over is accompanied with the very real message that ignoring the request, using the wrong words or body language when protesting the stop, or even twitching towards the glove box in what the officer can later claim was a "threatening manner" can get you handcuffed, arrested, or shot, the interaction becomes very different than Joe Citizen saying "Hey, cool car! Will you tell me about it?"

No matter the wrapping, no matter the innocent intentions of the officer, and no matter how polite he is, the reality here is that an armed agent of the government, authorized to arrest you if you don’t comply or to kill you if he feels threatened, has just ordered you to stop what you're doing and indulge his desire to know about your personal business, in this case, your car. Stopping and responding with a "no thank you, I'd rather not talk with you today,” even if successful, still means that you’ve been detained and are now asking permission to continue about your business, hoping that your choice of words or your body language don’t threaten or offend, lest you face an arrest for disorderly conduct.

As soon as a person puts on a gun and a badge, the inherent disparity in authority means that every interaction with the public carries very different implications than two private citizens chatting. Part of a law enforcement professional's job is to recognize the subtext that accompanies their authority and always act accordingly. A traffic stop to check out a cool car just plain wrong (and creepy).

And if you’re okay with being detained so he can check out your Tesla, how could you possibly complain if he becomes intrigued by your bumper sticker and pulls you over to question you about your political views or your religion or your sexual orientation? Or if he just decides you’re cute, with his innocent request for you to pull over carrying the ever present threat of arrest unless you comply? Or if he stops your child at at the mall and asks her to explain the shirt that she’s wearing, simply because he finds it interesting?

No matter how you dice it, he’s still saying “Stop, citizen, under threat of arrest and with the risk inherent in our interaction, and answer my questions.”

The right to make that demand must never be abused.

Excellent, excellent post. I don't think it could be said any better.

A friend of ours, who happens to be a rather attractive woman, has gotten out of traffic tickets more times than she can count. That's fair too, right?

These are completely inverse of each other. In one instance, a law enforcement officer has every right to detain and ticket a person for breaking the law in some way and is choosing instead to let them off with a warning. This happens every day and I think their superiors allow them to use a certain level of personal judgment. I'm not sure their superiors would be entirely happy if they thought the person let them off just because they were attractive, but there's no victim in it. In the other instance, a person is being illegally detained because a figure of authority liked their car.

 

[brianman]

I'm not sure their superiors would be entirely happy if they thought the person let them off just because they were attractive, but there's no victim in it.

Disagree. Let's assume the laws existing for a reason. Safety, reigning in crowd behavior, whatever. Every other driver is the victim here.

Also, some would argue that for the attractive "let off" person (especially if young) being treated differently can be a bad thing as well.

 

[Gear]

Disagree. Let's assume the laws existing for a reason. Safety, reigning in crowd behavior, whatever. Every other driver is the victim here.

Also, some would argue that for the attractive "let off" person (especially if young) being treated differently can be a bad thing as well.

How is every other driver the victim? It didn't take any time out of my day or affect me at all if a cop lets somebody out of a speeding ticket. I guess you can say every other driver is the victim except Gear then, because I don't count myself among them.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

How is every other driver the victim? It didn't take any time out of my day or affect me at all if a cop lets somebody out of a speeding ticket. I guess you can say every other driver is the victim except Gear then, because I don't count myself among them.

I think Brianman meant that every other driver is a 'potential' victim as the officer's effectively condoning the reckless behavior of the young, pretty one, thus encouraging her to repeat it and putting other drivers in danger in the process.

 

[brianman]

Indeed, gg_.

 

[Rodolfo Paiz]

OK, after reading 30 pages of comments, I must chime in here...

Bravissimo! Well-said, and absolutely correct on every point. A police officer flashing his/her lights and pulling you over is not a request, it is a demand. Their power to make that demand is limited to specific circumstances and causes, and is not totally discretionary. And that power must never be abused; perhaps more importantly, because we're all human and imperfect, all citizens share the responsibility to demand that said power not be abused.

 

[efusco]

OK, after reading 30 pages of comments, I must chime in here...

Police officers in our society are armed authority figures with the ability to detain, arrest, injure, or kill. Furthermore, while not beyond oversight, an officer involved in a physical confrontation, including the use of deadly force, almost certainly begins any subsequent investigation in a more defensible position than the private citizen with whom the altercation took place. Any rhetoric about holding police to a higher standard or scrutinizing their actions without bias may sound good on paper, but when a police officer interacts physically with a private citizen, the deck is clearly stacked in favor of the badge.

This means that when a police officer hits his lights and siren and asks you to pull your car over, it can never be equated with an innocent inquiry from a fellow private citizen. The officer's actions carry the subtext of armed authority that cannot be denied. Because the "request" to pull over is accompanied with the very real message that ignoring the request, using the wrong words or body language when protesting the stop, or even twitching towards the glove box in what the officer can later claim was a "threatening manner" can get you handcuffed, arrested, or shot, the interaction becomes very different than Joe Citizen saying "Hey, cool car! Will you tell me about it?"

No matter the wrapping, no matter the innocent intentions of the officer, and no matter how polite he is, the reality here is that an armed agent of the government, authorized to arrest you if you don’t comply or to kill you if he feels threatened, has just ordered you to stop what you're doing and indulge his desire to know about your personal business, in this case, your car. Stopping and responding with a "no thank you, I'd rather not talk with you today,” even if successful, still means that you’ve been detained and are now asking permission to continue about your business, hoping that your choice of words or your body language don’t threaten or offend, lest you face an arrest for disorderly conduct.

As soon as a person puts on a gun and a badge, the inherent disparity in authority means that every interaction with the public carries very different implications than two private citizens chatting. Part of a law enforcement professional's job is to recognize the subtext that accompanies their authority and always act accordingly. A traffic stop to check out a cool car just plain wrong (and creepy).

And if you’re okay with being detained so he can check out your Tesla, how could you possibly complain if he becomes intrigued by your bumper sticker and pulls you over to question you about your political views or your religion or your sexual orientation? Or if he just decides you’re cute, with his innocent request for you to pull over carrying the ever present threat of arrest unless you comply? Or if he stops your child at at the mall and asks her to explain the shirt that she’s wearing, simply because he finds it interesting?

No matter how you dice it, he’s still saying “Stop, citizen, under threat of arrest and with the risk inherent in our interaction, and answer my questions.”

The right to make that demand must never be abused.

I actually sided more with the "what's the real harm, cops are just as curious as anyone else" side on this issue prior to reading your post. This exceptionally well elucidated post has change my mind (and that RARELY happens on any issue) here. It is an abuse of power and shouldn't happen without substantiation.

 

[Rockster]

I actually sided more with the "what's the real harm, cops are just as curious as anyone else" side on this issue prior to reading your post. This exceptionally well elucidated post has change my mind (and that RARELY happens on any issue) here. It is an abuse of power and shouldn't happen without substantiation.

Very kind words. Thank you.

 

[Gear]

Bravissimo! Well-said, and absolutely correct on every point. A police officer flashing his/her lights and pulling you over is not a request, it is a demand. Their power to make that demand is limited to specific circumstances and causes, and is not totally discretionary. And that power must never be abused; perhaps more importantly, because we're all human and imperfect, all citizens share the responsibility to demand that said power not be abused.

Indeed. Any time an officer is doing something while on duty, but not in the line of duty, they should ask themselves if a private citizen could do it if they were able. Another private citizen cannot force me to pull over so it should not be acceptable for a cop to do it. It's not asking them to be held to a higher standard. It's asking them to be held to the same standard. Nobody is above the law.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

OK, after reading 30 pages of comments, I must chime in here...

Police officers in our society are armed authority figures with the ability to detain, arrest, injure, or kill. Furthermore, while not beyond oversight, an officer involved in a physical confrontation, including the use of deadly force, almost certainly begins any subsequent investigation in a more defensible position than the private citizen with whom the altercation took place. Any rhetoric about holding police to a higher standard or scrutinizing their actions without bias may sound good on paper, but when a police officer interacts physically with a private citizen, the deck is clearly stacked in favor of the badge.

This means that when a police officer hits his lights and siren and asks you to pull your car over, it can never be equated with an innocent inquiry from a fellow private citizen. The officer's actions carry the subtext of armed authority that cannot be denied. Because the "request" to pull over is accompanied with the very real message that ignoring the request, using the wrong words or body language when protesting the stop, or even twitching towards the glove box in what the officer can later claim was a "threatening manner" can get you handcuffed, arrested, or shot, the interaction becomes very different than Joe Citizen saying "Hey, cool car! Will you tell me about it?"

No matter the wrapping, no matter the innocent intentions of the officer, and no matter how polite he is, the reality here is that an armed agent of the government, authorized to arrest you if you don’t comply or to kill you if he feels threatened, has just ordered you to stop what you're doing and indulge his desire to know about your personal business, in this case, your car. Stopping and responding with a "no thank you, I'd rather not talk with you today,” even if successful, still means that you’ve been detained and are now asking permission to continue about your business, hoping that your choice of words or your body language don’t threaten or offend, lest you face an arrest for disorderly conduct.

As soon as a person puts on a gun and a badge, the inherent disparity in authority means that every interaction with the public carries very different implications than two private citizens chatting. Part of a law enforcement professional's job is to recognize the subtext that accompanies their authority and always act accordingly. A traffic stop to check out a cool car just plain wrong (and creepy).

And if you’re okay with being detained so he can check out your Tesla, how could you possibly complain if he becomes intrigued by your bumper sticker and pulls you over to question you about your political views or your religion or your sexual orientation? Or if he just decides you’re cute, with his innocent request for you to pull over carrying the ever present threat of arrest unless you comply? Or if he stops your child at at the mall and asks her to explain the shirt that she’s wearing, simply because he finds it interesting?

No matter how you dice it, he’s still saying “Stop, citizen, under threat of arrest and with the risk inherent in our interaction, and answer my questions.”

The right to make that demand must never be abused.

Bravo! I agree with you 100%.