[BuckyOne]

In the last 15-20 years many entities have promoted zero tolerance. Not such a thing anymore as giving a human being a break. It is a bust em - rack em - slab em world. Cops chase drunks who take a chance and die in high speed accidents. Essentially making the populace feel like there is a "bounty" on them while traveling so highway patrol can wrack up their arrest #'s and pay for their wages with the fines.

Ok, I know drunks are responsible for a lot of highway deaths where they were not being chased or provoked. Schools are zero tolerance - YMCA's - is there a chance this eventually incites rebellion?

[MinnesotaFats]

I'm going to back you up on this one. I'd suggest a couple issues are driving police to be the primary cause of creating or escalating a situation when one might not otherwise exist.

1- the use of technology such as automatic license plate readers. This issue was actually brought up in MN and rarely talked about. 3M created a program, attachable to any law enforcement vehicle, that scans over 1200 plates per minute, and compiles registered owner information and instantly cross checks it with various databases. Red flagged items pop up, such as suspended license, warrants, unpaid fines, child support, felonies, dwis, etc. Mind you that you may be driving perfectly fine, and there is no way to assume the registered owner of the vehicle is actually driving, but now LE has his sights on you. They sidestep the 4th ammendment by using BS reasons for the stop. The guy shot in MN had been pulled over over 5p times in the past 24 months for "seat belt violations and license issues". This is a direct violation of the 4th ammendment in my opinion and a crutch used by LE to compensate for their failure to actually observe real crime. Can't argue to hire more officers unless you justify the need for more officers, hence you create the problem that only you can solve. Add to this the monopoly of public union negotiating and the movement to monopolize force or arms within government and you see why LE has a vested interest in zero tolerance.

2- affirmative action. I think that police now have less faith in the qualifications and judgement of their partners as a result of less qualified or physically able cadets being put on the front line. No longer can a lead offer take a chance in letting a person of questionable behavior talk himself free when the situation has a huge variable- the skillset of his (the lead officer) 110 pound female partner. Any interaction must be a situation of complete control, regardless of circumstances. No longer do they protect and serve, but rather corral and accuse.

Just my thoughts. Been stung a few times with BS like this in MN. Actually packing up and moving because of it.

[pavyracer]

Do you want drunks driving and killing innocent people? If this happens then you will complaining police are not doing their job.

[Ralphie Halves]

I think zero tolerance is better. If you have tolerance, there are blurred lines as far as what's okay and what's not. Criminals will take advantage of that. Fans of criminals will say you're being unfair and biased towards them. Zero just means zero.

It's like raising small children. If they know that for example if they climb on the furniture they get in trouble, that's clear and easy to follow. a = b. If you're the type of parent that says "get off the furniture" 50 times before doing anything, the kid's going to do it all the time. Then when you finally try to enforce it, the kid's all confused and will start arguing about it. Just make zero mean zero. Easy.

[marcoloco]

^^
yep!

[jackbo]

If by "kids" = you mean blacks, and "arguing about it" = you mean all this BLM crap then I can relate to your example.

[MinnesotaFats]

But here again is the problem. 1) drunk defined by who and when? Used to be .10, then .08, then .04....etc, and that's a state that doesn't apply equally to all as there are functioning alcoholics. Furthermore, like the gun control argument, a large portion of drunk drivers are repeat offenders. They will always drive illegally drunk, much as criminals will always have illegal guns. Just because someone had a dwi in their past is not an excuse for a cop to tail him and pull him over for suspicion. There must be an act to instigate the suspicion in the present time, what I'm saying is that the data used by the automatic system I described is not a present time reason to create suspicion, it's a crutch, and it's enabling LE to be overzealous in their prosecution of minor and non criminal crime- to some extent, padding their stats for the self motivating reasons previously disclosed here

[pavyracer]

But here again is the problem. 1) drunk defined by who and when? Used to be .10, then .08, then .04....etc, and that's a state that doesn't apply equally to all as there are functioning alcoholics. Furthermore, like the gun control argument, a large portion of drunk drivers are repeat offenders. They will always drive illegally drunk, much as criminals will always have illegal guns. Just because someone had a dwi in their past is not an excuse for a cop to tail him and pull him over for suspicion. There must be an act to instigate the suspicion in the present time, what I'm saying is that the data used by the automatic system I described is not a present time reason to create suspicion, it's a crutch, and it's enabling LE to be overzealous in their prosecution of minor and non criminal crime- to some extent, padding their stats for the self motivating reasons previously disclosed here

Well swerving on the road, crossing the middle line, not stopping at stop signs or red lights, driving 135 mph against the flow of traffic with lights off at 2 am. You get the idea.

[chico2663]

I used to hang out in police bar. The police chief threw a bottle in the bar. These dipshits ran out guns drawn. They grabbed a 14 yr old black kid til the chief went and told them it was him. Another night we couldn't get these guys to leave the bar after closing time. then they were doing burnouts in front of the bar. I had season ticks to the bengals for 13 years. First 3 were with cops. We would be going down w 8th going 90 when we were pulled over and the dude was a boss and told them to screw themselves

[MinnesotaFats]

Yes Pavey, those acts are cause, that's legitimate. I think the point was missed here, there has undoubtedly been an increase in policing non suspect behavior based on profiling derived from data collection, not actual crime in progress.

This does not apply to all incidents where cops were called for other reasons (Baltimore, Baton Rouge), thou an "proportional response" discussion there would fit the threads title. My "data" theory does apply to the MN situation. Already the officer retracted his taillights rational and now claims the victim matched a robbery suspect. This is important to the argument as there is a 4th ammendment issue here and the police are in the wrong is the data collection led to profiling which led to a bogus rational for the stop and illegal search. This is where the black community even gets my sympathy, I'm white, 37, and a 1%er, yet I understand their grip, thou cannot believe that they are so bad in dissemination of their point of view.

[BuckyOne]

Thanks for the comments and feedback! Throw cell phones / texting into the mix as a variable in the traffic area. I really got a lot out of MinnesotaFats comments on using technology to get the driver information and then not provoke a dangerous chase that endangers others and endangers the life of someone's husband,father,brother, etc. - someone who works and pays taxes - is trying to make ends meet.

[recon1]

I've long been against the term "Zero tolerance'. The term is just code word for Zero common sense.

[blackHIPPY]

white people are so fkn trash