As reported by The Washington Post, the Minneapolis police are going to curb minor traffic stops, long cited by critics as a means of racial profiling.

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/minneapolis-police-to-curb-minor-traffic-stops-long-cited-by-critics-as-a-means-of-racial-profiling/ar-AANiLjZ

For example according to the story, no longer will air fresheners dangling from the rear view mirror or expired license plate tags/tabs be the sole reason for initiating a traffic stop.

Ok, I can agree with the air fresheners (already an absurd law in my opinion) but if your license plate tags/tabs are expired, they're expired...that needs addressed.

Your thoughts on the wider story here?

Expired tags warrant a stop, regardless of the perceived profiling environment. Encouraging drivers to follow all laws promotes safe driving culture and reduces likelihood motorists are out there in unsafe condition.

MPD should naturally continue their community outreach efforts toward rebuilding trust.

I understand why some of these offenses are in place, and why some are primary traffic violations.

But, as a Libertarian leaning Conservative, I believe that if a law won’t be enforced, can’t be enforced or shouldn’t be enforced, it should not be a law.

Bust these types of violations to secondary status.

(On soap box)And, I’ll disagree with the article and suggest that failure to signal is not a minor violation. Just because it’s common doesn’t mean it’s minor or unsafe. (Off soap box)

Another interesting note from the article:

If an officer suspect’s a Black driver of having drugs but has no probable cause to stop the person, they could stop the driver over a minor violation such as improperly signaling a turn or having an air freshener hanging from the rearview mirror, he said.

It seems to be quoting Moriarity, but is absent the quotation marks. Is this a case of bad editing, or editorializing in the guise of reporting the news? And, what’s with the possessive “suspect’s” vs. the present form of the verb “suspect”? Probably just bad editing.

(On soap box) Spell and grammar check have killed the written language. (Off soap box)

Aesma wrote:

What's the point of tags expiring again ? Here they last the life of the car. In Switzerland they go from car to car.

It’s all about taxes and fees. The tags or plates themselves don’t expire, the registration tied to them expires.

aeromoe wrote:

Ok, I can agree with the air fresheners (already an absurd law in my opinion) but if your license plate tags/tabs are expired, they're expired...that needs addressed.

Your thoughts on the wider story here?

It's a shame but I bet some or many of these officers are not going to pull them over on their own to avoid the racial profiling card always played if the occupant doesn't want to cooperate. The long term effects on this are concerning.

They do not that more than one wanted domestic terrorist has been caught by one of their 'minor' violations of traffic code...
Maybe rework the laws to get rid of the silly and more pointless laws not tie the hands of police who you asked to enforce the law. I feel the root of the issue is predatory policy making and law making. I've seen many a place that had laws on the books to suck the poor dry with silly tickets and enforcement action that did nothing to promote public safety. But it's much easier to just blame the boots on the ground I suppose.

NIKV69 wrote:

aeromoe wrote:

Ok, I can agree with the air fresheners (already an absurd law in my opinion) but if your license plate tags/tabs are expired, they're expired...that needs addressed.

Your thoughts on the wider story here?

It's a shame but I bet some or many of these officers are not going to pull them over on their own to avoid the racial profiling card always played if the occupant doesn't want to cooperate. The long term effects on this are concerning.

With all that has happened to minorities by cops over the decades, is it any wonder why minorities do not want to pull over for cops?

aeromoe wrote:

For example according to the story, no longer will air fresheners dangling from the rear view mirror or expired license plate tags/tabs be the sole reason for initiating a traffic stop.

I do wonder if technology that allows officers to scan license plates from a distance is driving this change. Officers no longer need to pull behind a vehicle to call in or type in the license plate number to see if it's legit - that can be done automatically via scanning with license plates that have chips in them.

So instead of pulling someone on the road, find the offending vehicle parked and wait for the owner to hand the citation (or arrest depending on the severity).

NIKV69 wrote:

It's a shame but I bet some or many of these officers are not going to pull them over on their own to avoid the racial profiling card always played if the occupant doesn't want to cooperate. The long term effects on this are concerning.

You believe it is a shame that racial profiling is something to be avoided.

phatfarmlines wrote:

I do wonder if technology that allows officers to scan license plates from a distance is driving this change. Officers no longer need to pull behind a vehicle to call in or type in the license plate number to see if it's legit - that can be done automatically via scanning with license plates that have chips in them.

So instead of pulling someone on the road, find the offending vehicle parked and wait for the owner to hand the citation (or arrest depending on the severity).

This is becoming more prevalent. Tags expired/not expired has zero impact on safety in any case, and there is never a reason for that to initiate a stop. However, yes, the tech does exist to scan at long ranges. Should the state be funding cops whose sole occupation is collecting revenue? Doubtful, given what is costs to subsidize cops on a per capita basis.

The larger issue there is that states need to stop treating motorists as their personal ATMs. This was not a problem until the mid 1970ies, but it is now, with the overwhelming majority of offenses/issues that can suspend a license or registration not being related to driver safety. Especially as those disproportionately affect minorities.

The MPD are taking a step in the right direction here.

Selective enforcement of motor vehicle laws by the skin color of the driver and/or passengers has a long and disturbing history in the USA. Cops used 'broken tail light' (non-working) as an excuse far too often to harass Black drivers to keep them out of White neighborhoods, to meet ticket quotas, maybe get lucky with a big drug bust that will give them opportunities for advancement and higher pay.

Some states mandated years ago dash cams in their police vehicles and more recently on police themselves to reduce racially biased motor vehicle and other law enforcement. Ferguson, MO, the city of a very public and controversial death by police of a criminal suspect also had a long and bad history of excessive enforcement of motor vehicle laws with Black persons that deadly confrontation brought out. Part of the enforcement was for income for the city that was limited in its other tax revenues. Also too often for Black persons, their registrations may not have proper residence addresses, face onerous and expensive court appearance that if missed led to further violations of law that could lead to an arrest with bail too high to pay and in jail while awaiting trial. As a result of that deadly confrontation, there was a significant increase in the numbers of Black persons on the city council, changes in law enforcement to limit racial abuses of enforcement of motor vehicle laws.

Yes, there is understandable criticism of the new police policy in Minneapolis but if your are a Black person, it comes generations too late.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

You believe it is a shame that racial profiling is something to be avoided.

No that is your spin, I think it's a shame that a lawful stop is turned into racial profiling as an excuse to not comply and even try to harm law enforcement. It's ok we are seeing what happens when you don't support police. It's not pretty.

NIKV69 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

You believe it is a shame that racial profiling is something to be avoided.

No that is your spin, I think it's a shame that a lawful stop is turned into racial profiling as an excuse to not comply and even try to harm law enforcement. It's ok we are seeing what happens when you don't support police. It's not pretty.

Apply the law equally and this would be less of a problem, no?

aeromoe wrote:

Ok, I can agree with the air fresheners (already an absurd law in my opinion) but if your license plate tags/tabs are expired, they're expired...that needs addressed.

Your thoughts on the wider story here?

Here in Massachusetts, police do not pull cars over because of expired tags. They go to parking lots, write tickets and place them on windshields - no confrontation necessary.

But why should police be in charge of revenue generation for a state, county or city?

NIKV69 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

You believe it is a shame that racial profiling is something to be avoided.

No that is your spin

It is exactly what you said. There was not a large degree of interpretation required. You do not believe racial profiling is something police forces need to improve.

NIKV69 wrote:

It's ok we are seeing what happens when you don't support police. It's not pretty.

Police are very well supported by tax dollars and fine revenue. Bootlicking and/or cheerleading are optional if you like, but not required.

You did not know that.

Aaron747 wrote:

Apply the law equally and this would be less of a problem, no?

Indeed. That is a root cause.

mbmbos wrote:

But why should police be in charge of revenue generation for a state, county or city?

I look forward to more and more cities addressing this. Becoming de-facto debt collectors does nothing to enhance public safety while simultaneously increasing increasing the level of violence perpetrated against civilians. The fewer needless interactions, the better.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

It is exactly what you said. There was not a large degree of interpretation required. You do not believe racial profiling is something police forces need to improve.

Never said that, again you are saying this. I think we need to improve it but I don't think it should be used by a person who was lawfully pulled over as a way to get out of not complying. If you can't see that then well it's clear how you feel about law enforcement.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Police are very well supported by tax dollars and fine revenue. Bootlicking and/or cheerleading are optional if you like, but not required..

Wow that is a vile comment but not surprising, no bootlicking just appreciation to people putting their lives on the line for us, As my previous statement pointed out we have seen in NYC and Chicago what happens when you don't support your police.

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

You believe it is a shame that racial profiling is something to be avoided.

No that is your spin, I think it's a shame that a lawful stop is turned into racial profiling as an excuse to not comply and even try to harm law enforcement. It's ok we are seeing what happens when you don't support police. It's not pretty.

Apply the law equally and this would be less of a problem, no?

No. In most cases the law is applied equally, but certain groups want treatment that is 'more equal.' This works in theory, but not on a practical basis.

What is the point of assigning most of the cops to relatively crime-free areas to 'equal things out,' and the many fewer remaining to high-crime areas? That’s a look-good, feel-good move by politicians that will only result in the opposite of the desired outcome.

Elkadad313 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

No that is your spin, I think it's a shame that a lawful stop is turned into racial profiling as an excuse to not comply and even try to harm law enforcement. It's ok we are seeing what happens when you don't support police. It's not pretty.

Apply the law equally and this would be less of a problem, no?

No. In most cases the law is applied equally, but certain groups want treatment that is 'more equal.' This works in theory, but not on a practical basis.

What is the point of assigning most of the cops to relatively crime-free areas to 'equal things out,' and the many fewer remaining to high-crime areas? That’s a look-good, feel-good move by politicians that will only result in the opposite of the desired outcome.

Nobody suggested assigning most of the cops to low crime areas. The data is not on the side of your argument in terms of applying the law equally:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0858-1

Significant findings from Shoub’s and her colleagues’ analysis of the North Carolina dataset include:

-Blacks were 63 percent more likely to be stopped even though, as a whole, they drive 16 percent less. Taking into account less time on the road, blacks were about 95 percent more likely to be stopped.
-Blacks were 115 percent more likely than whites to be searched in a traffic stop (5.05 percent for blacks, 2.35 percent for whites).
-Contraband was more likely to be found in searches of white drivers.

https://www.sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2020/06/ ... RregvfXeEc

I consider no signaling to be a ticketable offense. And being distracted by your phone is a very serious offense in most states including Minnesota. People who don’t signal are complete slobs. That is exactly why the people’s representatives made a law about that.

People careening around, driving like garbage is a serious quality of life issue and safety issue. Of course my strategy would be to jail law violators. Teach young men that you will never touch a young woman unless you obey the law and stay out of jail. Otherwise, your life will be very, very male centric for a long time.

NIKV69 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

It is exactly what you said. There was not a large degree of interpretation required. You do not believe racial profiling is something police forces need to improve.

Never said that, again you are saying this.

In fact you did. See below.

NIKV69 wrote:

I don't think it should be used by a person who was lawfully pulled over as a way to get out of not complying.

You see Racial Profiling as an excuse and not as a problem to be solved. In addition to betraying your fundamental lack of understanding, this is also serves to make clear a general hostility toward the victims of Police Brutality. On a personal note, I am glad this is not an issue I have to make excuses for when looking in the mirror.

NIKV69 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Police are very well supported by tax dollars and fine revenue. Bootlicking and/or cheerleading are optional if you like, but not required..

no bootlicking just appreciation to people putting their lives on the line for us,

Garbage men and Firefighters put their lives on the line. And are infinitely more necessary for a healthy and safe society. Cops are asymmetrically protected from Americans not only physically, but legally as well. They collect revenue and fail to show up in time to prevent violent crime.

I do not understand why you value this above racial equality and equality before the law.

LCDFlight wrote:

And being distracted by your phone is a very serious offense in most states including Minnesota.

It is on the path to being considered the same as DUI/OUI in many places. Check back in a decade and you will find it is probably an arrestable offense. This is fine, as it literally is more dangerous —and certainly more deliberate— than drunk driving.

LCDFlight wrote:

Teach young men that you will never touch a young woman unless you obey the law and stay out of jail.

Backfire. Many women value a man that has been to jail. Do not attempt to apply strict cause and effect to their reasoning.

Elkadad313 wrote:

What is the point of assigning most of the cops to relatively crime-free areas to 'equal things out,' and the many fewer remaining to high-crime areas? That’s a look-good, feel-good move by politicians that will only result in the opposite of the desired outcome.

It depends on what you are assigning them to do.
When we look at the black neighbourhoods it is obvious that those communities are not the benefactors of the billions of dollars made in the drug trade in the USA, yet they account for the majority of folks in jails for drug transportation and individual sales.
Now if you start running police stings in more wealthy communities looking for "recreational" drug users....
Every wonder why random drug testing is not universal on all jobs, imagine who would get caught.

par13del wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

What is the point of assigning most of the cops to relatively crime-free areas to 'equal things out,' and the many fewer remaining to high-crime areas? That’s a look-good, feel-good move by politicians that will only result in the opposite of the desired outcome.

It depends on what you are assigning them to do.
When we look at the black neighbourhoods it is obvious that those communities are not the benefactors of the billions of dollars made in the drug trade in the USA, yet they account for the majority of folks in jails for drug transportation and individual sales.
Now if you start running police stings in more wealthy communities looking for "recreational" drug users....
Every wonder why random drug testing is not universal on all jobs, imagine who would get caught.

That's an excellent point. In thousands of job postings I have been involved in, there is never a requirement for drug testing mid-senior management and up. Entry level and hourly? Quite often.

LCDFlight wrote:

I consider no signaling to be a ticketable offense. And being distracted by your phone is a very serious offense in most states including Minnesota. People who don’t signal are complete slobs. That is exactly why the people’s representatives made a law about that.

People careening around, driving like garbage is a serious quality of life issue and safety issue. Of course my strategy would be to jail law violators. Teach young men that you will never touch a young woman unless you obey the law and stay out of jail. Otherwise, your life will be very, very male centric for a long time.

Since there are more White people than Black people, I am assuming you want to see more White people in jail for not signaling a turn? I assume you want to see more White people in jail for distracted driving? I assume you want to see more White people in jail for not having insurance?

fr8mech wrote:

I understand why some of these offenses are in place, and why some are primary traffic violations.

But, as a Libertarian leaning Conservative, I believe that if a law won’t be enforced, can’t be enforced or shouldn’t be enforced, it should not be a law.

Bust these types of violations to secondary status.

(On soap box)And, I’ll disagree with the article and suggest that failure to signal is not a minor violation. Just because it’s common doesn’t mean it’s minor or unsafe. (Off soap box)

Completely agree with you here.

seb146 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

I consider no signaling to be a ticketable offense. And being distracted by your phone is a very serious offense in most states including Minnesota. People who don’t signal are complete slobs. That is exactly why the people’s representatives made a law about that.

People careening around, driving like garbage is a serious quality of life issue and safety issue. Of course my strategy would be to jail law violators. Teach young men that you will never touch a young woman unless you obey the law and stay out of jail. Otherwise, your life will be very, very male centric for a long time.

Since there are more White people than Black people, I am assuming you want to see more White people in jail for not signaling a turn? I assume you want to see more White people in jail for distracted driving? I assume you want to see more White people in jail for not having insurance?

I don't care what race people are. It means nothing to me. Look, these laws are already in place. We are talking about extra-judicially derecognizing laws because snowflakes don't like them. OK, then change the law.

LCDFlight wrote:

seb146 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

I consider no signaling to be a ticketable offense. And being distracted by your phone is a very serious offense in most states including Minnesota. People who don’t signal are complete slobs. That is exactly why the people’s representatives made a law about that.

People careening around, driving like garbage is a serious quality of life issue and safety issue. Of course my strategy would be to jail law violators. Teach young men that you will never touch a young woman unless you obey the law and stay out of jail. Otherwise, your life will be very, very male centric for a long time.

Since there are more White people than Black people, I am assuming you want to see more White people in jail for not signaling a turn? I assume you want to see more White people in jail for distracted driving? I assume you want to see more White people in jail for not having insurance?

I don't care what race people are. It means nothing to me. Look, these laws are already in place. We are talking about extra-judicially derecognizing laws because snowflakes don't like them. OK, then change the law.

Yes, the laws are in place but cops abuse them. Maybe instead of changing the laws, we make the hiring process for cops stronger?

seb146 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Since there are more White people than Black people, I am assuming you want to see more White people in jail for not signaling a turn? I assume you want to see more White people in jail for distracted driving? I assume you want to see more White people in jail for not having insurance?

I don't care what race people are. It means nothing to me. Look, these laws are already in place. We are talking about extra-judicially derecognizing laws because snowflakes don't like them. OK, then change the law.

Yes, the laws are in place but cops abuse them. Maybe instead of changing the laws, we make the hiring process for cops stronger?

Do you have statistics for your claim that cops abuse the laws? There are at least 61.5M contacts with the police per the DOJ (although the real number is probably higher as a lot of contacts go un reported). If the police abuse the law as you state, there should be a lot of statistics pointing that out with such a large data set. You claim a lot of things about the police as facts, but I don't see you posing facts to back them up. I always say this, and I will say it again. Of course there are bad police and they should be dealt with, but I highly doubt the actual numbers of bad/ law abusing police is any where as high as you portray. You paint with a very broad brush.

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

I don't care what race people are. It means nothing to me. Look, these laws are already in place. We are talking about extra-judicially derecognizing laws because snowflakes don't like them. OK, then change the law.

Yes, the laws are in place but cops abuse them. Maybe instead of changing the laws, we make the hiring process for cops stronger?

Do you have statistics for your claim that cops abuse the laws? There are at least 61.5M contacts with the police per the DOJ (although the real number is probably higher as a lot of contacts go un reported). If the police abuse the law as you state, there should be a lot of statistics pointing that out with such a large data set. You claim a lot of things about the police as facts, but I don't see you posing facts to back them up. I always say this, and I will say it again. Of course there are bad police and they should be dealt with, but I highly doubt the actual numbers of bad/ law abusing police is any where as high as you portray. You paint with a very broad brush.

https://stroudlawyers.com/civil-rights/ ... -of-power/
https://www.justice.gov/crt/addressing- ... nt-justice

Not to mention "qualified immunity".

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Yes, the laws are in place but cops abuse them. Maybe instead of changing the laws, we make the hiring process for cops stronger?

Do you have statistics for your claim that cops abuse the laws? There are at least 61.5M contacts with the police per the DOJ (although the real number is probably higher as a lot of contacts go un reported). If the police abuse the law as you state, there should be a lot of statistics pointing that out with such a large data set. You claim a lot of things about the police as facts, but I don't see you posing facts to back them up. I always say this, and I will say it again. Of course there are bad police and they should be dealt with, but I highly doubt the actual numbers of bad/ law abusing police is any where as high as you portray. You paint with a very broad brush.

https://stroudlawyers.com/civil-rights/ ... -of-power/
https://www.justice.gov/crt/addressing- ... nt-justice

Not to mention "qualified immunity".

Your first link is from an "injury" lawyer, hardly unbiased facts.

Your second link has this as its first sentence:
"The vast majority of the law enforcement officers in this country perform their very difficult jobs with respect for their communities and in compliance with the law"

That very sentence shows that there is not a pattern of cops abusing laws. I have explained qualified immunity (QI) several times, yet people refuse to believe what it really is and keep holding onto the myth. QI protects an LEO from criminal and civil liabilities if their actions were consistent with law, rule, regulation, and policy. The liability transfers to the department/agency. If the LEO breaks a law, rule, regulation, or policy, QI is out the window. So please tell me why QI is bad? If a cop shoots an armed suspect who is point said weapon at an innocent third party, why shouldn't they be protected from liability (assuming they were following laws, rules, regulations, and policy)? The MSP officers are all facing, or have been convicted of criminal charges. How was QI an issue there?

I have always been fascinated by police misconduct and police corruption, always. But that does not mean that we don’t need police to enforce the law anymore. That is a giant leap that only completely privileged people seem to make. If you have been a victim, of say ten violent crimes, you don’t have these fantasies that police aren’t necessary. Those fantasies are beaten and robbed out of you, or worse.

I wouldn’t stand a chance in this world without cops to protect me. Warlordism is horrible. Teenage-20s boys and men own everything and make all decisions. They enforce those decisions with force. A system of laws, and police to enforce those laws, is true justice and allows civilization to exist.

But it is hard to explain all this to people who just don’t have the basic knowledge and life experience. My theory? We became far too rich and too successful as a society. We need more struggle and more death. If that is what teaches people.

LCDFlight wrote:

I have always been fascinated by police misconduct and police corruption, always. But that does not mean that we don’t need police to enforce the law anymore. That is a giant leap that only completely privileged people seem to make. If you have been a victim, of say ten violent crimes, you don’t have these fantasies that police aren’t necessary. Those fantasies are beaten and robbed out of you, or worse.

I wouldn’t stand a chance in this world without cops to protect me. Warlordism is horrible. Teenage-20s boys and men own everything and make all decisions. They enforce those decisions with force. A system of laws, and police to enforce those laws, is true justice and allows civilization to exist.

But it is hard to explain all this to people who just don’t have the basic knowledge and life experience. My theory? We became far too rich and too successful as a society. We need more struggle and more death. If that is what teaches people.

No need for grandiloquent and condescending speech on the construct and values of society...
We're talking about minor road infractions. The kind that can be dealt with using modern technology and a fine in the mail without having to use confrontational methods which cops are obviously not always very good at dealing with when they escalate. Especially in a society where guns are so ubiquitous.

Society won't fall apart because cops issue less tickets for busted tail lights.
Plus, I reckon police resources could be better used going after actual criminals instead of chasing expired registrations.

Francoflier wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

I have always been fascinated by police misconduct and police corruption, always. But that does not mean that we don’t need police to enforce the law anymore. That is a giant leap that only completely privileged people seem to make. If you have been a victim, of say ten violent crimes, you don’t have these fantasies that police aren’t necessary. Those fantasies are beaten and robbed out of you, or worse.

I wouldn’t stand a chance in this world without cops to protect me. Warlordism is horrible. Teenage-20s boys and men own everything and make all decisions. They enforce those decisions with force. A system of laws, and police to enforce those laws, is true justice and allows civilization to exist.

But it is hard to explain all this to people who just don’t have the basic knowledge and life experience. My theory? We became far too rich and too successful as a society. We need more struggle and more death. If that is what teaches people.

No need for grandiloquent and condescending speech on the construct and values of society...
We're talking about minor road infractions. The kind that can be dealt with using modern technology and a fine in the mail without having to use confrontational methods which cops are obviously not always very good at dealing with when they escalate. Especially in a society where guns are so ubiquitous.

Society won't fall apart because cops issue less tickets for busted tail lights.
Plus, I reckon police resources could be better used going after actual criminals instead of chasing expired registrations.

The same city is talking about disbanding its police department later this year. It is going to the population for a vote soon. I share your utter disbelief, but it’s real.

The idea is to disband it to replace it with something else, something more effective and less based on the ‘police only’ approach and more geared towards responding to the needs and expectations of the community. Basically a more holistic approach driven by data, experts in various fields and more of a two-way exchange with communities.
Even if this passes, it does not mean that law enforcement will disappear and that criminals will be let to run amok in the city, no matter what Fox News would like us to believe.

It would be an interesting experiment IMO.

LCDFlight wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

I have always been fascinated by police misconduct and police corruption, always. But that does not mean that we don’t need police to enforce the law anymore. That is a giant leap that only completely privileged people seem to make. If you have been a victim, of say ten violent crimes, you don’t have these fantasies that police aren’t necessary. Those fantasies are beaten and robbed out of you, or worse.

I wouldn’t stand a chance in this world without cops to protect me. Warlordism is horrible. Teenage-20s boys and men own everything and make all decisions. They enforce those decisions with force. A system of laws, and police to enforce those laws, is true justice and allows civilization to exist.

But it is hard to explain all this to people who just don’t have the basic knowledge and life experience. My theory? We became far too rich and too successful as a society. We need more struggle and more death. If that is what teaches people.

No need for grandiloquent and condescending speech on the construct and values of society...
We're talking about minor road infractions. The kind that can be dealt with using modern technology and a fine in the mail without having to use confrontational methods which cops are obviously not always very good at dealing with when they escalate. Especially in a society where guns are so ubiquitous.

Society won't fall apart because cops issue less tickets for busted tail lights.
Plus, I reckon police resources could be better used going after actual criminals instead of chasing expired registrations.

The same city is talking about disbanding its police department later this year. It is going to the population for a vote soon. I share your utter disbelief, but it’s real.

Some cases, police are not needed. Welfare checks, for example. Or, a mental health expert is needed but an officer should go because someone off their meds is unpredictable but still needs someone to talk with. Also, police need to be taught that murdering a suspect or beating a suspect to a bloody pulp for loitering or not using a turn signal is the wrong answer.

The concept that an air freshener warrants a stop is absolute absurdity and clearly exists only as a way to allow police to abuse who they want to abuse. Making excuses for that just makes you part of the problem.

fr8mech wrote:

Aesma wrote:

What's the point of tags expiring again ? Here they last the life of the car. In Switzerland they go from car to car.

It’s all about taxes and fees. The tags or plates themselves don’t expire, the registration tied to them expires.

The police aren't supposed to be tax collectors...I thought you pretended to be a libertarian...

Apparently, however, tax collection devices that are more obtrusive are allowed, but making your car smell good isn't...

https://reason.com/2021/04/21/can-cops- ... ter-check/

N1120A wrote:

The police aren't supposed to be tax collectors..

In the case of failure to register your car, they are not acting as "tax collectors". They are doing their job and citing people for driving a vehicle illegally on the road. The officer does not collect anything from the person, nor does the fine money go toward the cost of registration.

There are no fines in France for driving in a way that is not legal?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

N1120A wrote:

The police aren't supposed to be tax collectors..

In the case of failure to register your car, they are not acting as "tax collectors". They are doing their job and citing people for driving a vehicle illegally on the road. The officer does not collect anything from the person, nor does the fine money go toward the cost of registration.

Except that, as mentioned, the entire reason for vehicle registration is tax collection.

N1120A wrote:

Tugger wrote:

N1120A wrote:

The police aren't supposed to be tax collectors..

In the case of failure to register your car, they are not acting as "tax collectors". They are doing their job and citing people for driving a vehicle illegally on the road. The officer does not collect anything from the person, nor does the fine money go toward the cost of registration.

Except that, as mentioned, the entire reason for vehicle registration is tax collection.

Except the police are not doing tax collection. They are enforcing a law that was passed "by the people".

You disagree with tax collection? Or with penalties for failure to pay said taxes/fees? Just let such failures to pay into the maintenance etc. of the roadways go, so if no one pays its fine?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Tugger wrote:

In the case of failure to register your car, they are not acting as "tax collectors". They are doing their job and citing people for driving a vehicle illegally on the road. The officer does not collect anything from the person, nor does the fine money go toward the cost of registration.

Except that, as mentioned, the entire reason for vehicle registration is tax collection.

Except the police are not doing tax collection. They are enforcing a law that was passed "by the people".

You disagree with tax collection? Or with penalties for failure to pay said taxes/fees? Just let such failures to pay into the maintenance etc. of the roadways go, so if no one pays its fine?

Tugg

Except the point of creating infractions and charging large amounts of money for vehicle registration is...tax collection.

N1120A wrote:

Tugger wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Except that, as mentioned, the entire reason for vehicle registration is tax collection.

Except the police are not doing tax collection. They are enforcing a law that was passed "by the people".

You disagree with tax collection? Or with penalties for failure to pay said taxes/fees? Just let such failures to pay into the maintenance etc. of the roadways go, so if no one pays its fine?

Tugg

Except the point of creating infractions and charging large amounts of money for vehicle registration is...tax collection.

But an officer issuing a ticket for expired/non-registration is STILL not tax collection.

And you did not address my question to you: How do you/does France handle people that do not pay required fees? Parking. Vehicle. Property. Whatever. Just allow it and move on with no worries and no penalties for those that do not follow the law?

I am truly curious as to your line here and why a fine/ticket for not paying is not OK with you.

Tugg

N1120A wrote:

The concept that an air freshener warrants a stop is absolute absurdity and clearly exists only as a way to allow police to abuse who they want to abuse. Making excuses for that just makes you part of the problem.

Anything hanging from the mirror could be seen as either a distraction while driving or limiting the driver's view. The intent of the law is correct. The use, not always. We have a law in Oregon that we can not flash our lights to pass. It is seen as distracting the other drivers. I get it but it just slows the rest of us down.

[quote="N1120A"]The police aren't supposed to be tax collectors...I thought you pretended to be a libertarian...[/quote]

Did I write anywhere in my post that I supported the concept, or did you just assume I did?

[quote="N1120A"]The concept that an air freshener warrants a stop is absolute absurdity [/quote]

As noted, anything hanging from the mirror could impair visibility, thus making it a matter of public safety.

Though, I don’t disagree with you. It certainly can lead to abuse and be used as a pretense to stop an otherwise legally operated vehicle.

fr8mech wrote:

It certainly can lead to abuse and be used as a pretense to stop an otherwise legally operated vehicle.

Except at night The only time of day traffic stops statistically become less abused and more equitable for all vehicle occupants.