Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Berekley, CA proposes having civilians do traffic enforcement

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Berekley, CA proposes having civilians do traffic enforcement

    https://www.policeone.com/traffic-pa...fd86c-42314431

    So, a city council member and the mayor of Berkeley, CA think it's a good idea to "separate" traffic enforcement from LE and have civilian do the traffic enforcement. [facepalm]

    THIS is what happens when you let people who know nothing about LE make LE decisions. Traffic stops are, statistically, one of the more dangerous activities we do in LE. They're fluid and highly unpredictable...there's absolutely no telling what you're walking up to on a traffic stop. Is this grandma on a Sunday drive or a felon who thinks he's going back to prison instead of getting a traffic warning? It also totally ignores the fact that traffic enforcement isn't always simply about TRAFFIC. Traffic enforcement is a key part of CRIMINAL enforcement...there are countless times each and every day that a "simple traffic stop" turns into a major criminal investigation because of the observations of a trained LEO.

    These proposals are going to end up making everyone...LE, civilian government employees, the public, and even the suspects...LESS safe.
    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
    -Friedrich Nietzsche

  • #2
    A man who carries a cat home by the tail is likely to learn more on the subject in 30 seconds than of he spends years studying up on the matter. He's unlikely to ever be dumb or dull on the subject.

    I know this sounds treasonous, but I say, let them do it.

    You can spend months talking to city officials until you are blue in the face, trying to convince them of the folly of their idea, but they're going to do it anyway and all you'll do is antagonize them in the process.

    Just let them do it and watch as the crime rate jumps from all the bad guys that are normally caught through traffic stops but now get away, because civilians lack the expertise, training, motivation or authority to spot them on a traffic stop. As cold as this sounds, wait patiently until a few civilian "Traffic Counselors" get blown away by a panicky bad guy who thinks he's about to go to jail, and the powers to be come to realize that "kinder and gentler" traffic enforcement unnecessarily costs lives.

    Then the "Grand Experiment" will end and things will return to normal.
    Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by L-1 View Post
      A man who carries a cat home by the tail is likely to learn more on the subject in 30 seconds than of he spends years studying up on the matter. He's unlikely to ever be dumb or dull on the subject.

      I know this sounds treasonous, but I say, let them do it.

      You can spend months talking to city officials until you are blue in the face, trying to convince them of the folly of their idea, but they're going to do it anyway and all you'll do is antagonize them in the process.

      Just let them do it and watch as the crime rate jumps from all the bad guys that are normally caught through traffic stops but now get away, because civilians lack the expertise, training, motivation or authority to spot them on a traffic stop. As cold as this sounds, wait patiently until a few civilian "Traffic Counselors" get blown away by a panicky bad guy who thinks he's about to go to jail, and the powers to be come to realize that "kinder and gentler" traffic enforcement unnecessarily costs lives.

      Then the "Grand Experiment" will end and things will return to normal.
      I'm honestly not sure they'll learn. The politicians and "activists" who are making these proposals are unlikely to ever be directly effected by them...most of them are elitists far removed from the realities of the world. They aren't living in the neighborhoods or communities that will be destroyed and they're certainly not going to be on the streets wading through the carnage that results. They'll be insulated in their walled communities and protected by their private security while they run their grand "social experiment." Look at the comment AOC made recently, saying that the spike in crime in NYC was because people were shoplifting bread to feed their families (while totally ignoring that the spike was in violent crimes like shootings).

      I honestly doubting that they're just oblivious and I'm really beginning to believe that they are willing to burn it all down to try to show that they're "right."
      "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
      -Friedrich Nietzsche

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by L-1 View Post
        A man who carries a cat home by the tail is likely to learn more on the subject in 30 seconds than of he spends years studying up on the matter. He's unlikely to ever be dumb or dull on the subject.

        I know this sounds treasonous, but I say, let them do it.

        You can spend months talking to city officials until you are blue in the face, trying to convince them of the folly of their idea, but they're going to do it anyway and all you'll do is antagonize them in the process.

        Just let them do it and watch as the crime rate jumps from all the bad guys that are normally caught through traffic stops but now get away, because civilians lack the expertise, training, motivation or authority to spot them on a traffic stop. As cold as this sounds, wait patiently until a few civilian "Traffic Counselors" get blown away by a panicky bad guy who thinks he's about to go to jail, and the powers to be come to realize that "kinder and gentler" traffic enforcement unnecessarily costs lives.

        Then the "Grand Experiment" will end and things will return to normal.

        Im sure you're aware, but politicians never admit to wrong doing even when its been observable the policy they either promoted or implemented is an observable failure. With this particular policy you could show them hundreds of videos of people being shot, killed, or maimed during a traffic stop and they still wouldn't believe what they're seeing to change their mind about implementing the policy.

        Comment


        • #5
          I assume their reasoning is that if the offender knows he is not being stopped by the police, the offender will not get scared and be forced to shoot a LEO in self defense. Not sure with what statutory authority these folks will operate under, or what they plan to do if someone refuses to ID them self, or simply decides not to stop at all.

          Comment


          • #6
            I’m waiting for POST and the Super Court to weigh in on this one...
            Now go home and get your shine box!

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't know. Look at New York City. The stopped their anti-crime unit in response to the anti-police demands of a particular community. Murders jumped and now the community is screaming for their return. I assume NYPD will say that they are only acting in response to the very vocal demands of the community who does not want them and who constantly castigates and belittles them for taking any type of police action to begin with. Perhaps NYPD might take a passive-agressive response and suggest it is in the best interest of the local population to resolve this situation with social workers and community peace keepers instead of the police.



              Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by just joe View Post
                I assume their reasoning is that if the offender knows he is not being stopped by the police, the offender will not get scared and be forced to shoot a LEO in self defense. Not sure with what statutory authority these folks will operate under, or what they plan to do if someone refuses to ID them self, or simply decides not to stop at all.
                In Colorado, in theory a private citizen could write a traffic ticket. They don’t, because they don’t have tickets and court dates, but they could.

                When we get a traffic complaint for an infraction we don’t witness, we have the complainant sign the ticket. Effectively they are issuing the ticket, not the officer.
                "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

                "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

                Comment


                • just joe
                  just joe commented
                  Editing a comment
                  In theory, do they also have the authority to stop vehicles? It wouldn't fly in Ohio, and I don't have any idea about California.

                • tanksoldier
                  tanksoldier commented
                  Editing a comment
                  In theory, yes: a private citizen can detain and make an arrest. That power is granted by statute. They can’t use red and blue lights Because of a separate statute but if they can get the vehicle to stop some other way, or follow it to it’s destination, yes. In theory stopping a vehicle is easier for a civilian, because reasonable suspicion, probable cause, 4th amendment, etc don’t apply to them.

                  ...and in Colorado at least there’s no statue that specifically regulates traffic stops. We use the “yield to emergency vehicles” statue as the mechanism to get them to pull over.
                  Last edited by tanksoldier; 07-16-2020, 01:53 PM.

              • #9
                Why not let them handle domestics too?

                Comment


                • #10
                  While safety issues are being debated here, it’s the legal authority to detain thats really at issue.

                  California law requires drivers to yield to an emergency vehicle, one that must have a forward facing red light. This is something Berkeley must resolve for this program to go forward. There are only a handful of agencies out there with said vehicles (Police, Fire, EMS). Some agencies, like Bridge Patrol, have an emergency vehicle to respond to accidents.

                  Berkeley will need to figure out how to create a non sworn enforcement unit that can legally pull people over.

                  From everything I have seen and heard, the criminal offender is not the going to be the biggest risk. The biggest risk is the average Joe who knows these people are not capable of law enforcement and therefore will not stop at red lights and stop signs. They will regularly speed through the city. When Berkeley Traffic Enforcement (BTE) go to pull over these traffic scofflaws, the drivers will not stop and will flee. Given this is specific to the city of Berkeley, many imagine their authority will end at the city limit.

                  Berkeley has historically been a leader in criminal justice reform. Things that we take for granted, started there.
                  semper destravit

                  Comment


                  • vc859
                    vc859 commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Would this unit be separated from the police entirely or just separate from sworn officers? Can CSOs take PC832 and write citations)

                    The only way I could really see this working is if Berkeley creates a mirror “traffic code” under city ordinances and have them write those sections.

                • #11
                  What type of vehicle do they drive?
                  Under who’s authority do they stop vehicles?
                  What happens if vehicles don’t stop?
                  What happens if they don’t sign?

                  Most importantly, as civilians / non LEO, are they granted access to NCIC?

                  Comment


                  • #12
                    Originally posted by Aidokea View Post
                    Why not let them handle domestics too?
                    Yes!

                    After all every civilian already knows what we "can't" do, they know their "rights" better than us, they know the law better than us and they know who should be arrested before asking all those needless questions or investigations.

                    You know, all that stuff we should already know, that they didn't teach us in the thousands of hours we spent in the academy and in service training.

                    Since they know better than us, I think they should implement this program immediately and stop wasting all that tax money on training.


                    ​​​​​​
                    Last edited by westside popo; 07-16-2020, 12:44 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #13
                      Originally posted by just joe View Post
                      I assume their reasoning is that if the offender knows he is not being stopped by the police, the offender will not get scared and be forced to shoot a LEO in self defense.
                      Yeah, that's probably the idea behind it.

                      But people are threatening, assaulting and killing parking enforcement officers over $20 tickets. I can only imagine what they will do to an unarmed "traffic agent" who tries to pull them over...

                      Comment


                      • #14
                        My first fight was on a traffic stop with a trucker on the interstate with no backup.

                        These people are delusional. God help us all.

                        Comment


                        • #15
                          Originally posted by Aidokea View Post
                          Why not let them handle domestics too?
                          I completely agree.

                          it’s the legal authority to detain thats really at issue.
                          Private persons arrest exists by statute in California.

                          All traffic infractions, at least in Colorado, COULD be written as careless/reckless, Traffic misdemeanors, which would make detention by a private person lawful.
                          Last edited by tanksoldier; 07-16-2020, 02:08 PM.
                          "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

                          "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

                          Comment

                          MR300x250 Tablet

                          Collapse

                          What's Going On

                          Collapse

                          There are currently 3447 users online. 208 members and 3239 guests.

                          Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                          Welcome Ad

                          Collapse
                          Working...
                          X