Re:NYC pilot tries mental health responders in place of police
by giantg2 on Sunday November 15, 2020 @08:03AM
(#25100857)
Older models might have 2 lights. Some motorcycles might have only one.
"gives legal grounds for a traffic stop but doesn't really justify it."
What do you consider justification? According to the law and police regulations, it would be justified. Logic also supports the idea that if there is a law on the books, it should either be enforced or removed. In this case the law has the purpose (as almost all traffic laws do) of promoting safety.
"circumvent the default protection against unreasonable search and seizure"
How so? As I stated before, the law's purpose is to promote safety. Also, when you sign your registration card or driver's license, you are agreeing to obey the traffic laws. This isn't just some made up excuse to violate people's rights.
"can't we find a way to hold these people accountable that doesn't involve a face-to-face encounter with an armed officer?"
We already do this for some infractions like red light cameras (what a disaster) and speed cameras. It's possible this could be expanded further, but probably wouldn't be able to fit all driving laws or areas. Also, what's wrong with the officer being armed? This shouldn't have any negative impact on the stop and should be reasonable since there is a likelihood that the person could be armed too, which most of the time is not also not a problem.
"gives legal grounds for a traffic stop but doesn't really justify it."
What do you consider justification? According to the law and police regulations, it would be justified. Logic also supports the idea that if there is a law on the books, it should either be enforced or removed. In this case the law has the purpose (as almost all traffic laws do) of promoting safety.
"circumvent the default protection against unreasonable search and seizure"
How so? As I stated before, the law's purpose is to promote safety. Also, when you sign your registration card or driver's license, you are agreeing to obey the traffic laws. This isn't just some made up excuse to violate people's rights.
"can't we find a way to hold these people accountable that doesn't involve a face-to-face encounter with an armed officer?"
We already do this for some infractions like red light cameras (what a disaster) and speed cameras. It's possible this could be expanded further, but probably wouldn't be able to fit all driving laws or areas. Also, what's wrong with the officer being armed? This shouldn't have any negative impact on the stop and should be reasonable since there is a likelihood that the person could be armed too, which most of the time is not also not a problem.