Crime In The Heights

[Jeebus]

If you knew anything about serial arsonists and the specifics of this case, you'd know that the odds are very high that the arsonist lives in the area. Reading a DL that shows the driver lives in the area would not make a GOOD cop cut him loose.

No, a good cop would do as he did in the call, but with PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY. That is my entire point.

As for the specifics of the case, are the police profiling by race, as another poster assumed "young white guy"? If they are, is that not racial profiling that we fight so hard to prevent the officers from doing? Please don't tell me that now that they're looking for a white guy burning down abandoned homes in an improved area of town, they're going to break their own rules.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Jeebus

[RedScare]

No, a good cop would do as he did in the call, but with PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY. That is my entire point.

As for the specifics of the case, are the police profiling by race, as another poster assumed "young white guy"? If they are, is that not racial profiling that we fight so hard to prevent the officers from doing? Please don't tell me that now that they're looking for a white guy burning down abandoned homes in an improved area of town, they're going to break their own rules.

Frankly, there was no profiling. The officer used a pretext traffic violation to stop the only vehicle on the road to see what he could see. This is done all over the city, and is what the police are trained to do. Around crack houses, they stop people for no seat belts, not using turn signals within 100 feet of the corner, not stopping in front of the white stop line, rolling stops...you name it. Once stopped, they use a variety of methods to gain either permission to search, or probable cause to search.

As for professionalism and courtesy, my experience has been that cops usually return the amount of courtesy that they are given. Having seen the writing style of Marksmu, and read his opinions on various matters, I am unconvinced that he was as courteous as he claims, and unconvinced the cop was as rude as he claims. I AM convinced from 22 years in criminal law that the cop did nothing that would interest IAD. This was a textbook stop to gain a peek inside a vehicle.

[heights]

Come on people. Reading his post I don't think Marksmu is complaining about being stopped and appreciates the police presence. He just got a cop with an attitude and I can't blame him for complaining. Nothing worse than a cop with an attitude, particularly when uncalled for.

No, I think if you reread Marksmu's post, you'll find that it was Marksmu with the attitude. What did the officer do that was so wrong?

He used his siren.

He was short in stature.

He asked Marksmu for his license and registration.

He glanced at the license and registration "without reading anything"

He asked Marksmu what he was doing in the area at the time.

He "scoffs" and asks where Marksmu lives.

He goes to his car for a "ridiculous long time"

He "comes stomping back"

He asks Marksmu how many times he's been arrested. The officer likely already knows that Marksmu has been charged with and/or convicted of MIP but probably doesn't know whether it was an arrest with release on promise to appear (ticket) or a custodial arrest.

When Marksmu replies (somewhat untruthfully) that he's never been arrested, the officer says "You mean to tell me you've never been arrested?"

Marksmu again replies (somewhat untruhfully) "Nope never". Then Marksmu tells the officer about the MIP.

The officer "gets all cocky" (maybe he just knows that Marksmu is either being untruthful or "mincing words") and says "So you have been arrested?"

Marksmu then plays word games again and says "Nope, it was a misdemeanor I was ticketed and released"

The cop then "stomps back to his car again"

The cop then "stomps back" and hands Marksmu his license and insurance.

The cop says "he needs to search the vehicle" (It was probably more like "Do you mind if I search your vehicle" or "I'd like to search the vehicle") -- If Marksmu is such a learned attorney, he would know that he has every right to refuse and that his refusal would not be a basis for further action (like getting a search warrant) if there is not already probable cause for such action.

Marksmu then gives permission to search the vehicle (his choice). The cop quickly looks in the vehicle and finds nothing.

The cop asks Marksmu what he does for a living.

Marksmu replies that he is an attorney and feels that the cop "gets a bit nicer" perhaps because Marksmu is an attorney (I doubt that talking to an attorney would make the cop "get nicer")

Here Marksmu alleges that the cop has "already pulled me over for nothing and searched my truck for no reason". We all know that Marksmu was pulled over on a pretext traffic stop, meaning that he actually did commit a traffic violation (the wide turn) and the officer wants to stop him related to the arson investigations. Again, Marksmu is an attorney so he should know this is perfectly legal. The officer searched Marksmu's truck because Marksmu gave him permission to search the truck.

The officer asks Marksmu for his phone number. Marksmu does not have to provide this information -- a person under arrest must only provide name, date of birth, and residence address. Marksmu voluntarily provided the phone number.

The officer goes to the car and returns again and Marksmu finally asks the officer why he had been stopped and the officer immediately tells him the reason. Marksmu engages the officer in a "discussion" about whether or not a violation has actually been committed.

The officer then lets Marksmu know that his trailer hitch is blocking the view of his license plate, which Marksmu acknowledges is true.

==============

Now would someone care to tell me what part of that whole rant was misconduct on the part of the officer?

[heights]

By showing courtesy and professionalism to the citizens I serve!?

Give me a break.

You might want to read up on the department and the actions you're defending, starting with their mission statement.

Even if you take Markmsu's account of the incident as the gospel truth, there is really nothing there to indicate that the officer was discourteous or unprofessional. Markmsu refers to the cop "stomping" back and forth to his car, taking a "ridiculous long time", asking questions about various things including prior criminal history, asking to search the car, and asking for a phone number (I don't think the cop was looking for a date).

None of that is unprofessional or discourteous. That's what the police are supposed to do as a part of investigating and suppressing crime. None of that violates that "mission statement" that you posted.

Are you suggesting that the cops need to blow sunshine where sunshine normally doesn't reach?

Edited October 23, 2009 by heights

[Marksmu]

I keep reading through this post looking for the part where the officer mistreated you and violated your rights.

HPD: "Hmmm...4:25 am in the neighborhood where the fires start in a Ford F250 (that Marksmu frequently describes as huge). That's not very common in the Heights. Wonder what he's doing. Oh, look! A minor traffic violation! My training tells me that I can make a pretext traffic stop for that violation. That will give me a legal reason to stop this guy and see what he's up to. OK, drivers license and insurance. Let's run that DL through my Mobile Data Terminal to check his criminal history and look for warrants. My training tells me that 85% of all criminal arrests come from traffic stops. While I wait for the return, I'll glance through this guy's truck to see if I notice any fire starting materials, or if it smells like gasoline or smoke. They said arsonists are most often younger white males at the shift meeting. And, I'll ask a few questions to make sure that he is really from this neighborhood. As long as he gives reasonable responses, he'll be on his way in no time. OK, sir. You're free to go. Note to self...damned if you do, damned if you don't. These Heights residents demand to know why we haven't caught the arsonist yet, then get pissy when we stop them at 4:30 in the morning to check on things. I'll probably get another groundless IAD complaint from that guy."

You know, you COULD HAVE been intelligent enough to know that when you drive through the EXACT area at the EXACT time when the fires start, the cops may be looking a little closely at you. You COULD HAVE recognized that this guy is looking out for the value of your pretentious McVictorian, thanked him for his diligence and posted here about how HPD is taking this arson spree very seriously. Instead, you do EXACTLY what is expected of a young white male with a brand new law license...you get all pissy that they had the nerve to stop you. I was driving home at 4:45 this morning, and saw the lights on down the street. I almost drove by to see who HPD had stopped, but decided not to make their job harder. I so wish I had now.

I believe I made my point extremely clearly on my first two posts but Ill restate it one last time so you understand - I stated that I did not have a problem with being stopped, I understood why I was being stopped, I knew why I was being stopped when he u-turned on 11th before he ever turned his lights and siren on. lll even go so far to say that I am happy that they are stopping people like this....

It was his attitude and posture throughout the stop that was uncalled for.

1) Whether or not a cop uses his siren is certainly in his discretion. In my short life I have never been in a vehicle where the cop used his siren to stop it. Its not necessary, people have a reasonable belief that police only use their sirens when an ordinary stop is escalating into a less than ordinary stop. I was already pulling over with my blinker on before he ever turned the siren on. It was un-necessary, it made me feel immediately threatened.

2) I was polite and reasonable the entire time. I have been taught to keep my hands on 10 and 2 and say yes sir, no sir. I did this. He called me boy. Unnecessary. It seemed throughout the stop that his behavior and his tone was an attempt to get me to escalate the situation and do or say something that he could arrest me for. It was un-necessary and confirmed my original feelings of being threatened.

3) He has no right to search the vehicle. I was well within my rights to refuse to allow him to search it. I did not do so because 1) I already felt threatened, and 2) his tone led me (whether right or wrong) to believe that if I refused to allow the search, he would escalate the situation himself, and then detain me so he could search it. It is a lose-lose situation for me. I allowed it simply because it was more convenient for me to allow it than fight it. I had a place to be, there was a reason I was up that early!

4) He had no reason to take my phone number. In my life I have never seen this done and it added to my nervous feelings. In hind sight I honestly think he was checking me to see if I was drunk, and was having me repeat my number to him to see if I would change it, or if I would slur my words. But at that time it felt like it was being done to increase my nervousness.

I do not have a problem with all cops - I have good friends that are cops, and they are the first to admit that there are plenty of cops who have power and attitude issues. This whole situation could have played out very differently and would not have even warranted an internet complaint had he been polite and asked the same questions and not made me feel like I was in some way a criminal. He could have stopped me asked me everything he wanted to, and we both could have been on our way, possibly even in the same long time, but I would not have left thinking what a jerk that guy just was.

The last time I was stopped was by a state trooper who pulled me over for not coming to a complete stop on a small farm road before pulling onto another small farm road. I had a dog in my passenger seat barking at him, a loaded shot gun in my back seat, and a big cooler full of beer. The stop was a breeze, he asked me to get out so we could be away from the dog and talk (nicely), he asked for my information, I gave it to him, he asked if the gun was loaded I said it was, he asked if he minded if he unloaded it, I did not, I held the dog by the collar while he unloaded it, he checked my information, it came back clean, he issued me a warning for not stopping completely and we were on our way. No problem whatsoever with that stop. I had broken the law, and I had a loaded gun in plain sight...he was polite, professional, and neither of us ever felt threatened the whole stop. That was not at all how this stop went.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Marksmu

[tmariar]

Wow, Marksmu and heights, I think y'all both need to stop and catch your breath on this one.

Marksmu - I'm sure it was a frustrating and possibly even frightening experience. But some of your comments do seem a little disingenuous. It's 4:30am in the area of the arsons, the police are under a lot of pressure to find someone, and they probably have little to go on other than that the arsonist's targeting that area in the early morning hours, when few people are out and about. I don't see what your being clean-cut and well-dressed or what kind of car you drive has to do with anything. And you can't expect that showing proof that you're a resident will have much effect given that the arsonist seems to have some personal connection and easy access to the area, and so is probably suspected of being a resident. I can understand wanting to rant a little, especially if the officer was unprofessional after he stopped you. Stopping people for minor violations is often a hallmark of police harassment, true, but it becomes "harassment" to my mind only when the police are improperly targeting a person or group of people, or otherwise making the stops for an improper purpose. You know what the officer's purpose was in stopping you, and for wanting your permission to search your car, and I don't think it's improper to want to catch the arsonist.

Heights - Marksmu was plainly trying to communicate that he generally appreciates the job that the police are doing. He may have made some comments that weren't very well thought through, but chances are that the officer was trying to intimidate Marksmu to some extent in order to get his permission to search the car, and it can be scary to be in that situation. It's not surprising that Marksmu feels a little victimized, even if the officer behaved in a completely appropriate manner from start to finish - and we have no way of really knowing that because we weren't there. Those who are encouraging him to file a complaint are giving him the benefit of the doubt, and I can't see anything to criticize about the general proposition that someone who feels like they have suffered improper treatment at the hands of a police officer should file a complaint. The notion that anyone who does so is a crybaby is as juvenile as that term.

Edited October 23, 2009 by tmariar

[Fringe]

90% of the time I find myself defending a cops actions. Probably because I have been on both sides and know what a god awful job it is being a cop. I also realize there are a lot of bad cops out there, even more these days because the majority of departments are having to relax their standards just to get new personnel. It only takes one bad cop to ruin it for all the good ones.

I realize there are two sides to every story but every thing I read in Marksmu post seems to indicate he handled himself properly. Obviously others read it different. 

[Highway6]

No problem. I was arriving home from work. I get off work at 4:00 am, and it takes me 45 minutes to drive home. I usually make a quick run around the neighborhood once I enter the Heights, since there has been trouble at that time of the morning lately, but I don't drive up on traffic stops. I also fully expect to get pulled over one of these mornings, but, unlike Marksmu, I realize the pressure that HPD and HFD is under from self-important Heights residents to catch the arsonist, and once stopped, would cooperate fully. I also realize that cops are law enforcement officers, not CVB employees, so I do not expect them to make me feel all warm and fuzzy. I have 2 dogs for that.

But you'd also be ticked if it took them 25 minutes to determine you're not an arsonist

[N Judah]

The cop says "he needs to search the vehicle" (It was probably more like "Do you mind if I search your vehicle" or "I'd like to search the vehicle") -- If Marksmu is such a learned attorney, he would know that he has every right to refuse and that his refusal would not be a basis for further action (like getting a search warrant) if there is not already probable cause for such action.

Aaaahhahahahaahha. If I had been drinking something when I read that you'd owe me a new keyboard. Lols!

Edited October 23, 2009 by N Judah

[Marksmu]

Your actually mixing my feelings of the officer AFTER the stop was completed with the feelings I had of the officer as the stop was being conducted.

The short power complex jerk feelings set in AFTER the stop was conducted.

During the stop I felt threatened. He treated me like a criminal. The same questions can be asked politely rather than accusingly.

No, I think if you reread Marksmu's post, you'll find that it was Marksmu with the attitude. What did the officer do that was so wrong?

He used his siren.

Use of the siren was unnecessary and did make me feel threatened whether intended to or not.

He was short in stature.

I am also short in stature - this was a post stop observation and part of the attitude complex.

He asked Marksmu for his license and registration.

He glanced at the license and registration "without reading anything"

He asked Marksmu what he was doing in the area at the time.

He "scoffs" and asks where Marksmu lives.

All expected questions that could have been asked without an attitude.

He goes to his car for a "ridiculous long time"

Ive gotten tickets that dont take 10 minutes to write - I assumed he was writing a ticket when he came back without one is when the times became ridiculous.

He "comes stomping back"

Also a post stop observation.

He asks Marksmu how many times he's been arrested. The officer likely already knows that Marksmu has been charged with and/or convicted of MIP but probably doesn't know whether it was an arrest with release on promise to appear (ticket) or a custodial arrest.

My ticket was expunged after a no contest plea and deferred adjudication...I dont know what shows up on that computer they have, but I dont believe that will show up. It was 13 years ago.

When Marksmu replies (somewhat untruthfully) that he's never been arrested, the officer says "You mean to tell me you've never been arrested?"

Marksmu again replies (somewhat untruhfully) "Nope never". Then Marksmu tells the officer about the MIP.

Nothing untruthful in any of my responses. When a ticket is expunged, its as if it never happened. It was not an untruthful answer.

The officer "gets all cocky" (maybe he just knows that Marksmu is either being untruthful or "mincing words") and says "So you have been arrested?"

Marksmu then plays word games again and says "Nope, it was a misdemeanor I was ticketed and released"

The cop then "stomps back to his car again"

The cop then "stomps back" and hands Marksmu his license and insurance.

All after the fact feeling. I remained exceptionally polite throughout the stop.

The cop says "he needs to search the vehicle" (It was probably more like "Do you mind if I search your vehicle" or "I'd like to search the vehicle") -- If Marksmu is such a learned attorney, he would know that he has every right to refuse and that his refusal would not be a basis for further action (like getting a search warrant) if there is not already probable cause for such action.

I believe he first asked if I had any weapons, and I told him no except that I had a 1" flipping pocket knife in a vinyl belt clip case hanging from my map clip in my roof center console in clear view. Thinking hard, I believe he said that he needed to search the vehicle after that. His tone and attitude is what led me to believe that I could not refuse without getting my hand forced. I know I am within my rights to refuse, its just easier not to if your not hiding anything.

Marksmu then gives permission to search the vehicle (his choice). The cop quickly looks in the vehicle and finds nothing.

It was my choice, and I knew I could refuse and make it into something its not. I did what I believe was the smart thing, and allowed it so as not to escalate the situation.

The cop asks Marksmu what he does for a living.

Marksmu replies that he is an attorney and feels that the cop "gets a bit nicer" perhaps because Marksmu is an attorney (I doubt that talking to an attorney would make the cop "get nicer")

I do think police act with a little more tact around attorneys. Attorneys usually know when an officer is abusing his discretion, and I believe, whether correctly or not that they attempt fewer abuses and act with a little more tact.

Here Marksmu alleges that the cop has "already pulled me over for nothing and searched my truck for no reason". We all know that Marksmu was pulled over on a pretext traffic stop, meaning that he actually did commit a traffic violation (the wide turn) and the officer wants to stop him related to the arson investigations. Again, Marksmu is an attorney so he should know this is perfectly legal. The officer searched Marksmu's truck because Marksmu gave him permission to search the truck.

The officer asks Marksmu for his phone number. Marksmu does not have to provide this information -- a person under arrest must only provide name, date of birth, and residence address. Marksmu voluntarily provided the phone number.

Again, refusing these questions and searches just adds to the officers suspicion and makes me appear to be hiding something. I felt that the officer wanted to escalate the situation, I attempted to defuse that attitude by being polite.

The officer goes to the car and returns again and Marksmu finally asks the officer why he had been stopped and the officer immediately tells him the reason. Marksmu engages the officer in a "discussion" about whether or not a violation has actually been committed.

The officer then lets Marksmu know that his trailer hitch is blocking the view of his license plate, which Marksmu acknowledges is true.

All of this true. 1) I did not know I could not make a right hand turn without crossing into the left hand lane of the road I am turning into. It surprised me that it was a law because it is physically impossible for many vehicles, not just mine to make that turn like that.

2) I never complained about the hitch - It seemed to me at that time, that after likely acknowledging internally that it is impossible that I cant make that turn without using the left lane, that he wanted to add a second reason for the stop....one he didnt think of till I questioned him about the initial reason.

I wanted to know why I was stopped because if I was doing something wrong, I sure as heck did not know it. He told me why, I just reacted unbelieving...thats all that went down there...there was no attitude, and I was not rude...I reacted the same as I would when told about a law that its against the law to walk backwards with a chicken on a leash before noon on Tuesday.

==============

Now would someone care to tell me what part of that whole rant was misconduct on the part of the officer?

Throughout the ordeal it was his attitude not his conduct. Ive already said many times, I was not upset about the stop. It was the treatment during the stop.

[OutfieldDan]

You know, you COULD HAVE been intelligent enough to know that when you drive through the EXACT area at the EXACT time when the fires start, the cops may be looking a little closely at you. You COULD HAVE recognized that this guy is looking out for the value of your pretentious McVictorian, thanked him for his diligence and posted here about how HPD is taking this arson spree very seriously. Instead, you do EXACTLY what is expected of a young white male with a brand new law license...you get all pissy that they had the nerve to stop you. I was driving home at 4:45 this morning, and saw the lights on down the street. I almost drove by to see who HPD had stopped, but decided not to make their job harder. I so wish I had now.

Red Scare is absolutely right. Not only does Marksmu fit the profile, but Marksmu's attitude in his post is suspicious.

1. The arsonist probably lives in the neighborhood.... Marksmu lives in the neighborhood and proved it with his license

2. The fires all start early in the morning..................... Marksmu was driving out of the area of the fires at 4-5 AM, apparently fast, and taking wide turns like he was making a getaway

3. The arsonist is probably a wealthy youngish white dude who has a dislike of dilapidated buildings, and lives in a new house ............. Marksmu is white (probably), youngish (probably), drives a new expensive big truck, and probably lives in a nice new house indicated on his drivers license.

4. If the arsonist is pulled over, he'll likely try the story that he has a big important job.......... Marksmu even claimed he is a lawyer to the cop, and how many lawyers drive around at 4:30am?

5. If the arsonist get's away with not getting caught after being stopped, it's likely he will act indignant about the event so that he remains above suspicion. He might even post about it on haif.

After reading all the posts in this thread, I want to congratulate the officer for stopping someone who may very well be the arsonist. I hope he stops Marksmu again and searches his truck. If I were Marksmu, I would expect to be stopped EVERY time I drive around 11th and Rutland at 4am until the guy is caught and confesses. If innocent, Marksmu should be glad the cops are taking it to this level. OTOH, if guilty, maybe complaining more about strict police scrutiny will let him get away with it again.

For the cop that stopped Marksmu: GOOD JOB!

Edited October 23, 2009 by OutfieldDan

[Fringe]

how many lawyers drive around at 4:30am?

Well two that have posted in this thread.  

[Jeebus]

Well two that have posted in this thread.  

FTW!

[Marksmu]

Red Scare is absolutely right. Not only does Marksmu fit the profile, but Marksmu's attitude in his post is suspicious.

1. The arsonist probably lives in the neighborhood.... Marksmu lives in the neighborhood and proved it with his license

2. The fires all start early in the morning..................... Marksmu was driving out of the area of the fires at 4-5 AM, apparently fast, and taking wide turns like he was making a getaway

You clearly failed to read the original post. I made a full stop at the light on 11th and Yale - the light was red. I drive a diesel, fast is the last word I would use to describe it, not only that I pulled over on 10th and a half, I never got to more than 8 miles an hour by that point. Wide turns are required to avoid hitting the curb, especially straight non rounded curbs like the streets in the heights. My truck is large - it does not turn like a car....where you got the getaway apart? Ill just assume your already drinking...its Friday.

3. The arsonist is probably a wealthy youngish white dude who has a dislike of dilapidated buildings, and lives in a new house ............. Marksmu is white (probably), youngish (probably), drives a new expensive big truck, and probably lives in a nice new house indicated on his drivers license.

Young, fairly - 29....wealthy? Not really...above average, but far from wealthy. Expensive new truck? nope - 2006 Ford...100,000+ miles.

4. If the arsonist is pulled over, he'll likely try the story that he has a big important job.......... Marksmu even claimed he is a lawyer to the cop, and how many lawyers drive around at 4:30am?

Am I supposed to lie....I could have given him my bar card if he wanted. As to how many lawyers up at that hour? Dont know. My wife frequently goes to work at that hour, especially when doing trial prep.

I was up at that hour because I am weaning cattle 60 miles east of town in a small corral, and I have to feed them before work, because unexpected plans came up preventing me from going to tend to them on my normal day, Saturday.

5. If the arsonist get's away with not getting caught after being stopped, it's likely he will act indignant about the event so that he remains above suspicion. He might even post about it on haif.

Not even worthy of a dignified response.

After reading all the posts in this thread, I want to congratulate the officer for stopping someone who may very well be the arsonist. I hope he stops Marksmu again and searches his truck. If I were Marksmu, I would expect to be stopped EVERY time I drive around 11th and Rutland at 4am until the guy is caught and confesses. If innocent, Marksmu should be glad the cops are taking it to this level. OTOH, if guilty, maybe complaining more about strict police scrutiny will let him get away with it again.

I already said I had no problem with being stopped. I knew why I was being stopped, not necessarily the pretext for the stop (which is why I asked) but I knew they were looking for the arsonist. The problem I had was not with the stop it was with the attitude.

[Porchman]

1. The arsonist probably lives in the neighborhood.... Marksmu lives in the neighborhood and proved it with his license

2. The fires all start early in the morning..................... Marksmu was driving out of the area of the fires at 4-5 AM, apparently fast, and taking wide turns like he was making a getaway

3. The arsonist is probably a wealthy youngish white dude who has a dislike of dilapidated buildings, and lives in a new house ............. Marksmu is white (probably), youngish (probably), drives a new expensive big truck, and probably lives in a nice new house indicated on his drivers license.

4. If the arsonist is pulled over, he'll likely try the story that he has a big important job.......... Marksmu even claimed he is a lawyer to the cop, and how many lawyers drive around at 4:30am?

5. If the arsonist get's away with not getting caught after being stopped, it's likely he will act indignant about the event so that he remains above suspicion. He might even post about it on haif.

6. All the fires have been started at night between angry, daytime rants about Obama. OMG!

In all seriousness, if the officer was short, he may cop attitude in a Napoleon-like manner on all his stops. I wouldn't want to be treated poorly by a police officer. I also wouldn't want to be patrolling the streets alone at 4:30 in the morning.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Porchman

[SilverJK]

Heights.... you weren't there, you didn't see the body language or hear the tone of the officer. I have been pulled over before and the officer did everything by the book (just like other times i'd been pulled over) and still felt like i was being threatened or intimidated.

That being said... Mark you didn't get a ticket... who gives a crap about 25 minutes really? He just wanted to put you in the hot seat and see if anything came out. Do you REALLY care that much?

Last time i was asked "where do you work" by a police officer I politely asked him why he needed to know that. It has no relevance to the traffic stop.

[Tiko]

My wife frequently goes to work at that hour, especially when doing trial prep.

We're up to three now.

[AtticaFlinch]

I really, really hate to admit this, but I tend to side with Marksmu on this one.

I'm not sure if it's because I believe Marksmu's account of the story, or if it's because I resoundingly distrust most cops.

On the one hand, I see their value in that neighborhood at that time especially, and I think pulling Marksmu over was more than justifiable. On the other, I've personally witnessed and borne the brunt of several Napoleon syndrome temper tantrums and can sympathize with anyone else who has. A 23 minute stop is going overboard, especially after Marksmu consented to a search and gave the cop everything he'd asked for. Then again, Marksmu didn't lose anything but time. He didn't go to jail, and his truck wasn't impounded.

[SilverJK]

I've had that much time taken from me at a fast food place.

[Golden Locks]

y'all have WAY too much time on your hands....

...oh, and you can always send the blue canaries over to 13th and Blair...I can't say that I've ever seen them patrolling around our street...and it might save us the Constable Patrol fee if they had a more visible presence....

[RedScare]

I really, really hate to admit this, but I tend to side with Marksmu on this one.

I'm not sure if it's because I believe Marksmu's account of the story, or if it's because I resoundingly distrust most cops.

On the one hand, I see their value in that neighborhood at that time especially, and I think pulling Marksmu over was more than justifiable. On the other, I've personally witnessed and borne the brunt of several Napoleon syndrome temper tantrums and can sympathize with anyone else who has. A 23 minute stop is going overboard, especially after Marksmu consented to a search and gave the cop everything he'd asked for. Then again, Marksmu didn't lose anything but time. He didn't go to jail, and his truck wasn't impounded.

I know a LOT of cops.

I know a LOT of lawyers.

When the two come in contact with each other, it is a good bet that both think the other is a prick.

I'm filing this in the crybaby file. Any cops reading this...keep up the pretext stops.

[AtticaFlinch]

I know a LOT of cops.

I know a LOT of lawyers.

When the two come in contact with each other, it is a good bet that both think the other is a prick.

I'm filing this in the crybaby file. Any cops reading this...keep up the pretext stops.

I don't know many of either, but of the cops I've met, however briefly, most have not been bad people. Some of them I'd go so far as to call good people. Problem is, there's enough of them that are pricks to make me wary of all of them.

[ricco67]

I don't know many of either, but of the cops I've met, however briefly, most have not been bad people. Some of them I'd go so far as to call good people. Problem is, there's enough of them that are pricks to make me wary of all of them.

Ed: I REALLY miss the "-" button.

Like in every profession, you're going to find good people, bad people, highly skilled, and those you wondered why they got hired in the first place; but you're not going to be able to tell that in an encounter that only lasts a few minutes.

When I get pulled over, I have my ID and insurance ready, greet the officer with a smile, hand him the info, answer questions, accept my ticket, wish the officer a good and safe day and move on with my life.

Its not really that hard.

[heights]

I really, really hate to admit this, but I tend to side with Marksmu on this one.

Attica, I know we've disagreed in the past, but I browsed some of Marksmu's other posts and saw you two really had a run-in, so I know how it pains you to say that.

On another note, while I appreciate that OutfieldDan is on my end of the teeter-totter on this traffic stop, he's further towards the end: As of this moment, I do not think that Markmsu is the arsonist.

Markmsu, I cannot believe that it upsets you so much that the officer used his siren and that you perceive that as the officer "trying to escalate" the stop. Perhaps you let that initial factor affect the course of the entire encounter. I suppose you also felt that he was trying to intimidate you when he shined the spotlight in your mirror.

Someone else pointed out that I was not present during the traffic stop -- correct. Only Markmsu and the officer were there, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll say again that the truth of what occurred lies somewhere between Markmsu's story and the officer's story, which we have not heard.

I'm not saying that everything every officer does is right, I have seen officers act improperly and I have seen officers get disciplined for it too. The reason that I referred to IAD filers as crybabies is because so very many of the complaints are frivolous -- they often arise from the citizen's misconceptions about the law and their rights and from the fact that many officers are not cheery bundles of sunshine when they're in the middle of an interaction that has the potential to end their life (just watch some you-tube videos of officers getting shot on traffic stops). Unfortunately, if a citizen went to IAD and said that an officer exploded a nuclear bomb in the citizen's backyard, IAD would accept and investigate the complaint. Due to the legal complexities and civil service laws, IAD investigations take an extraordinary amount of time to complete. They take officers and supervisors away from the street for hours to write letters, meet with attorneys, etc.

IAD investigations should be reserved for real misconduct. If you felt the officer wasn't pleasant enough for your tastes, you could have asked him to have a supervisor come by the scene to speak to you. I can tell you that most sergeants who have spent any time in patrol (not all of them have), would have listened to the story you told, explained to you that the officer has discretion to use his siren, explained to you that your wide turn could be considered an offense which you would have an opportunity to defend yourself against in court, explained to you that the officer has the right and responsibility to ask you questions regarding your actions, explained to you that the officer has a right to ask for consent to search your vehicle, asked you if you had any other questions, and then sent you on your way.

====

Several posters have referenced "bad cops" in their posts. I hope that nobody can possibly think that the officer that stopped Markmsu falls into that category, even if what Markmsu said was 100% what happened.

The cops that dumped Joe Campos Torres in the bayou were bad cops. The cops that stole the grant money that was supposed to go towards youth basketball camps were bad cops. The cops that pull women over and force them to have sex to get out of a ticket are bad cops. The cops that steal money out of the wallets of immigrants and think they'll get away with it because the illegals won't report it are bad cops. The cops that get drunk on duty are bad cops.

But the cop that stopped Markmsu and made Markmsu "feel intimidated" is not a bad cop. (Unless of course he does one of those "bad cop" things too.)

Edited October 23, 2009 by heights

[AtticaFlinch]

Ed: I REALLY miss the "-" button.

Like in every profession, you're going to find good people, bad people, highly skilled, and those you wondered why they got hired in the first place; but you're not going to be able to tell that in an encounter that only lasts a few minutes.

When I get pulled over, I have my ID and insurance ready, greet the officer with a smile, hand him the info, answer questions, accept my ticket, wish the officer a good and safe day and move on with my life.

Its not really that hard.

You'd think. I admit to never having a problem with cops in Houston, but East Texas... now that's another story (stories, really) altogether.

And as far as the good, bad and ugly people in other jobs thing goes, at least when pricks occupy most other jobs you have some recourse. When you get a prick used car salesman, you shop elsewhere. When the prick is scanning your groceries, you get in another line. When the prick's your waiter, you don't leave a tip. When the prick is a cop, you're screwed. Sometimes it doesn't matter how saccharin sweet you are to the person, and sometimes it doesn't matter how well prepared you are with your documents, sometimes people are just pricks. And, when you've got people like that, they don't need to be cops. Prison guards perhaps, but not cops.

[AtticaFlinch]

But the cop that stopped Markmsu and made Markmsu "feel intimidated" is not a bad cop. (Unless of course he does one of those "bad cop" things too.)

To be fair, I didn't call the cop bad. When I used the word bad I was speaking generally. I did say the cop was justified in his actions of pulling Marksmu over, but his actions thereafter "overreached."

[Marksmu]

Attica, I know we've disagreed in the past, but I browsed some of Marksmu's other posts and saw you two really had a run-in, so I know how it pains you to say that.

On another note, while I appreciate that OutfieldDan is on my end of the teeter-totter on this traffic stop, he's further towards the end: As of this moment, I do not think that Markmsu is the arsonist.

Markmsu, I cannot believe that it upsets you so much that the officer used his siren and that you perceive that as the officer "trying to escalate" the stop. Perhaps you let that initial factor affect the course of the entire encounter. I suppose you also felt that he was trying to intimidate you when he shined the spotlight in your mirror.

Someone else pointed out that I was not present during the traffic stop -- correct. Only Markmsu and the officer were there, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll say again that the truth of what occurred lies somewhere between Markmsu's story and the officer's story, which we have not heard.

I'm not saying that everything every officer does is right, I have seen officers act improperly and I have seen officers get disciplined for it too. The reason that I referred to IAD filers as crybabies is because so very many of the complaints are frivolous -- they often arise from the citizen's misconceptions about the law and their rights and from the fact that many officers are not cheery bundles of sunshine when they're in the middle of an interaction that has the potential to end their life (just watch some you-tube videos of officers getting shot on traffic stops). Unfortunately, if a citizen went to IAD and said that an officer exploded a nuclear bomb in the citizen's backyard, IAD would accept and investigate the complaint. Due to the legal complexities and civil service laws, IAD investigations take an extraordinary amount of time to complete. They take officers and supervisors away from the street for hours to write letters, meet with attorneys, etc.

IAD investigations should be reserved for real misconduct. If you felt the officer wasn't pleasant enough for your tastes, you could have asked him to have a supervisor come by the scene to speak to you. I can tell you that most sergeants who have spent any time in patrol (not all of them have), would have listened to the story you told, explained to you that the officer has discretion to use his siren, explained to you that your wide turn could be considered an offense which you would have an opportunity to defend yourself against in court, explained to you that the officer has the right and responsibility to ask you questions regarding your actions, explained to you that the officer has a right to ask for consent to search your vehicle, asked you if you had any other questions, and then sent you on your way.

====

Several posters have referenced "bad cops" in their posts. I hope that nobody can possibly think that the officer that stopped Markmsu falls into that category, even if what Markmsu said was 100% what happened.

The cops that dumped Joe Campos Torres in the bayou were bad cops. The cops that stole the grant money that was supposed to go towards youth basketball camps were bad cops. The cops that pull women over and force them to have sex to get out of a ticket are bad cops. The cops that steal money out of the wallets of immigrants and think they'll get away with it because the illegals won't report it are bad cops. The cops that get drunk on duty are bad cops.

But the cop that stopped Markmsu and made Markmsu "feel intimidated" is not a bad cop. (Unless of course he does one of those "bad cop" things too.)

Ill end it on my end with this....I never said nor implied that this cop was a bad cop...throughout my posts all of them, I stated that I appreciated the intensive coverage we have been getting since the fires...I want the police presence, and I dont mind being stopped and questioned because I am not doing anything wrong. What upset me about this whole ordeal was the way the cop treated me. I was not treated anywhere near with the same respect that I treated him. He treated me like a criminal, and made me feel threatened the entire stop. That was the extent of my complaint. Each of his actions I complained of, were (to me) a further escalation of the perceived threat.

Some might think I am hypersensitive about this, but I know when someone is looking to escalate something, and that is exactly what this officer was doing. He wanted it escalated for one reason or another...I was the one trying to keep things calm....

It was almost as if I was in a bar and some guy bumped into me and threw his chest out....I know he wants me to say something about it, and start something, but its just not that big of a deal.

Hindsight - I probably should have left it alone and just dealt with it without posting it out to the whole world...but by the time I got to work from my ranch I had been replaying the scenario in my head so long, I had gotten more upset about it. I am still irked about the turning law...I now know that every time I make a right turn in the Heights, I might get pulled over...I drove the intersection again just to see if it was possible to make that turn and that I am not crazy. I'm not crazy. Its not possible to do without utilizing the left lane of Southbound Yale.

Bottom Line - I appreciate the vigilance, but some common sense, and basic courtesy could have avoided the entire misunderstanding.

[Marksmu]

You'd think. I admit to never having a problem with cops in Houston, but East Texas... now that's another story (stories, really) altogether.

And as far as the good, bad and ugly people in other jobs thing goes, at least when pricks occupy most other jobs you have some recourse. When you get a prick used car salesman, you shop elsewhere. When the prick is scanning your groceries, you get in another line. When the prick's your waiter, you don't leave a tip. When the prick is a cop, you're screwed. Sometimes it doesn't matter how saccharin sweet you are to the person, and sometimes it doesn't matter how well prepared you are with your documents, sometimes people are just pricks. And, when you've got people like that, they don't need to be cops. Prison guards perhaps, but not cops.

First time I have ever hit the plus button for Attica - even polar opposites can sometimes agree. Not so much the East Texas thing, the highway patrol that pulled me with the beer/dog/gun was in East Texas, but when you get a cop who is acting like a prick or even just having a bad day, your screwed. Like it or not, there is little you can do when an officer over-reaches...

And FWIW - I was never going to file a formal complaint - I was only intimidated....if I had felt truly in danger I would have filed a complaint....I am not the type to file complaints unless there really is no other recourse...here I dont want to hog tie the police in their efforts to catch criminals, the Federal government does enough of that...I just want to be treated with common courtesy...even if my turn technically was a wide turn and not technically legal, the entire attitude could have been more professionally, especially considering the "violation" he pulled me over for...if he needed to escalate it at any time, he has the power to do so, but in my opinion he wanted it escalated from the start.

[AtticaFlinch]

First time I have ever hit the plus button for Attica - even polar opposites can sometimes agree.

Next thing you know, Marksmu, we're gonna get this pesky healthcare thing worked out.

[heights]

Some might think I am hypersensitive about this, but I know when someone is looking to escalate something, and that is exactly what this officer was doing. He wanted it escalated for one reason or another...I was the one trying to keep things calm....

And in my final post on the matter I'll address this particular quote.

I'm not sure what you mean by your comments that the cop wanted to "escalate" it. I can pretty much assure you that the last thing a police officer wants to do on a traffic stop is "escalate" it. If you think the officer was trying to provoke you into doing something he could arrest you for, I think you are wrong. If you committed a traffic violation, he already had something he could arrest you for. And regarding your earlier comment about the cop wanting to be the hero (or some similar words) for catching the Heights arsonist, I think you are also incorrect. Most patrol officers like to catch criminals -- but it's not about being a hero or anything. If a patrol officer single-handedly does something that results in the arrest of the Heights Arsonist, he'll probably get a letter of commendation from the Chief. And it takes about 100 of those to offset a sustained citizen complaint, so they are not that big a deal.

Edited October 24, 2009 by heights