Sintrias

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights So based on what we've discussed, are loose restrictions on the use of officer deception tactics wise? Does that looseness toward officer deception when interacting with the public support the Peelian principles?

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights Was the citizen refusing to exit or merely questioning their aithority to give such an order? When the officer aimed her firearm at the citizen, he had his hands on the steering wheel in plain view. What apparent threat was there to officer safety?

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights Exactly. Public perception isn't merely a statistical fact. It's an important determining measure which either legitimizes or delegitimizes police. I support law enforcement, but I do not trust officers. It shouldn't be that way. The public should be able to do both.

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights And who has historically been said to be the ones that determine if a police force exists or not?

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights There you go. I believe that's one of the biggest reasons perception of law enforcement is so low as well as the seemingly widespread officer ignorance the laws they're supposed to enforce, adhere to, and protect. Law enforcement is largely seen as a revenue stream.

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights You're not thinking in terms of an innocent human's lived experience. If someone is arrested because an officer lied, their life is likely ruined whether or not they can argue in court. Do you not see the problem with loose restrictions on the use of deception tactics?

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights And that's how people's lives get ruined because you will have your vehicle impounded, potentially costing thousands of dollars to retrieve, and courts often require years in such cases before resolved. And just resolution is not guaranteed because of qualified immunity.

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights So if someone is pulled over for speeding, and the officer lies, saying the citizen was travelling 30 MPH over the speed limit when they were actually only 5 MPH over, that's okay? The citizen has no grounds to argue with the officer and must allow the officer to arrest them?

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights Also, officers often use deception tactics without reasonable suspicion. Are you saying that doing so is actually illegal? An officer must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion to engage in deception tactics?

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights The problem existed beforehand but hadn't had the impact on public perception likely due to lack of exposure. Because of the internet and broader access to video recording devices, exposure has substantially increased. In human interactions, honesty does not respect dishonesty.

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights The use of officer deception does not only occur during interrogations. It often happens in these routine traffic stops as well regarding false drug possession allegations, among others, by officers. The public immediately loses trust in law enforcement when obviously lied to.

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights Right, well 55% isn't great either. The reason is that current rulings are insufficient for enabling a more positive perception. It's not about the enforcement of law. It's the manner which officers are allowed to. Officers can use deception while the public cannot for example.

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights Do you agree that current public perception of law enforcement as a whole is much more negative compared to past perception?

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights I'm glad we could come to some agreement. I still think Grahams does not sufficiently address the core issues with these types of interactions and needs careful reconsideration to enhance officer and public safety as well as public perception of law enforcement.

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights Also, the officer seems to have had her finger on the trigger. She didn't only aim the firearm at the citizen's head. She actively had her finger on the trigger. One rule of firearm safety is to never put your finger on the trigger unless you intend to shoot.

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights Sure, if the firearm is on your person or in a console where you keep your registration or insurance. But in this scenario, the firearm was in the trunk of the car. The officers would not have ever known otherwise because they did not have reasonable suspicion for a search.

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights So you tell me why any citizen should disclose possession of a firearm to an officer if doing so causes an immediate escalation.

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights Do you actually think the citizen in this video was being treated fairly? After honest disclosure, there was an obvious escalation in the officers' dispositions BEFORE the exit order occurred. It's illogical because non-disclosure would not have caused those officers to escalate.

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights You're dodging the contention I'm presenting. There are two fundamental issues the ruling doesn't address well. The first is officer and public safety risk. The second is honest interactions between officers and the public. Disclosure decreases risk but results in escalation.

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights Then exiting should be normalized for every traffic stop because escalating only when a citizen is being honest discourages that honesty. Exiting should automatically be a routine part of a traffic stop unless the occupant is physically unable to.

[Sintrias @Sintrias1]

@grok @JCFights Lol. The supposed safety risk was objective whether or not the disclosure happened. A similar stop could have occurred without the disclosure. What safety risk does disclosure add to the situation? It doesn't. Disclosure can ONLY reduce risk. I know you know this.