• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police "Interference"... Crossing the street in a safe way.

Drowning Man

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 26, 2019
Messages
4,437
Reaction score
2,284
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A man is threatened with arrest for crossing the street with a flag that helps drivers to see that there is a pedestrian crossing the street because the cops are trying to do a sting operation to nail drivers with tickets for not yielding...

So...is the goal to make people safer, or revenue generation?

 
Take a wild guess.
 
As far as I know the only similar thing in the UK is the Christmas drink drive awareness stuff where we have extra police near some pubs.

The police don't generate fines in the same way.
 
Nearly all moving violations are solely for revenue generation

It has nothing to do with catching people doing wrong and potentially killing someone....

Speeding
Cell Phone usage (clue, a main cause of me being rear ended a few years ago)
Unsafe lane change (cause of many accidents)
Tailgating (cause of chain reaction collisions)
 
It has nothing to do with catching people doing wrong and potentially killing someone....

Speeding
Cell Phone usage (clue, a main cause of me being rear ended a few years ago)
Unsafe lane change (cause of many accidents)
Tailgating (cause of chain reaction collisions)

That's nice. Has nothing to do with the topic...but that's nice.

Yes, it's not an all or nothing proposition (safety vs. policing for profit). But threating a guy with arrest for crossing the street safely, is asinine.
 
That's nice. Has nothing to do with the topic...but that's nice.

Yes, it's not an all or nothing proposition (safety vs. policing for profit). But threating a guy with arrest for crossing the street safely, is asinine.
Interfering with a police investigation is obstruction of justice. You don't have to commit another crime in order to be charged with obstruction of justice. You can, in fact, do something that would otherwise be perfectly legal, like safely crossing the street, but if it interferes with a police investigation, you can be charged. You can even engage in constitutionally protected behavior and be charged with obstruction of justice if that behavior interferes with a police investigation. One could make the argument that telling someone about an impending subpoena for documents should be protected under freedom of speech, but if it interferes with a police investigation, it is considered obstruction of justice and you can be charged.
 
That's nice. Has nothing to do with the topic...but that's nice.

Yes, it's not an all or nothing proposition (safety vs. policing for profit). But threating a guy with arrest for crossing the street safely, is asinine.

He was interfering.
 
He was interfering.

Bullshit. He could hold up a sign that said, “Cops ahead checking that cars yield to pedestrians!“ and it still wouldn’t be interfering. That would come under first amendment protected speech.
 
Interfering with a police investigation is obstruction of justice.

First, it wasn’t an “investigation”…it was a cop trap. Second that’s not interfering.

You don't have to commit another crime in order to be charged with obstruction of justice. You can, in fact, do something that would otherwise be perfectly legal, like safely crossing the street, but if it interferes with a police investigation, you can be charged.

Almost always, interference isn’t defined as a physical act getting in the direct way of an officer. Crossing the street doesn’t fit the bill unless it was going into a taped off area where they are trying to preserve a crime scene or something like that.

You can even engage in constitutionally protected behavior and be charged with obstruction of justice if that behavior interferes with a police investigation. One could make the argument that telling someone about an impending subpoena for documents should be protected under freedom of speech, but if it interferes with a police investigation, it is considered obstruction of justice and you can be charged.

Cops can and do charge people with all kinds of stupid crap that doesn’t stick, and one can argue just about anything…doesn’t make it legal
 
Was the guy using the flag prior to the sting operation?
 
Was the guy using the flag prior to the sting operation?

The flags were set out for pedestrians to use before the sting operation but really that’s irrelevant anyway...
 
The flags were set out for pedestrians to use before the sting operation but really that’s irrelevant anyway...

It's not irrelevant. If the flags were set out for pedestrian use, then the police don't have a leg to stand on.
 
It's not irrelevant. If the flags were set out for pedestrian use, then the police don't have a leg to stand on.

If he brought a sign saying “Watch for pedestrian! Cop sting operation ahead!”, that would still be legal. It’s irrelevant whet the flags were already there or not. They don’t have a leg to stand on in any case.
 
If he brought a sign saying “Watch for pedestrian! Cop sting operation ahead!”, that would still be legal. It’s irrelevant whet the flags were already there or not. They don’t have a leg to stand on in any case.

Sure. If you don't have any understanding of how the criminal justice system actually operates.
 
A man is threatened with arrest for crossing the street with a flag that helps drivers to see that there is a pedestrian crossing the street because the cops are trying to do a sting operation to nail drivers with tickets for not yielding...

So...is the goal to make people safer, or revenue generation?


And if a car hits someone while the civilian is waving his flag?
 
Bullshit. He could hold up a sign that said, “Cops ahead checking that cars yield to pedestrians!“ and it still wouldn’t be interfering. That would come under first amendment protected speech.

Does this logic hold for any crime, Drowning Man? If gun runners are transporting illegal firearms to a certain location and a sting operation is set up, would such a warning be considered "free speech"?
 
Back
Top Bottom