If there's one thing that's very hard to understand about American cops, it's sometimes their logic. It's often contradictory and circular.
For example, there are several videos out there where cops arrest someone "for resisting arrest", which is completely asinine and so circular that it's hilarious. For example in one video they are arresting some young woman and her mother asks one of the cops why they are arresting her, and the cop just directly and unambiguously says "for resisting arrest". In another video about a different case a cop was asked during a deposition why he had arrested the suspect, and once again the cop directly and clearly answered "for resisting arrest".
In most if not all of the United States cops can only demand your ID if they have a reasonable suspicion of a crime that they suspect you of doing, and they must be able to clearly articulate the crime by name (ie. it can't be a vague suspicion of some unspecified yet-to-be-determined "crime"). Well, what do you know, there are several videos out there of a cop demanding someone's ID and that someone asking the cop what crime he suspects him of committing, and the cop answers with "failure to show ID."
There's just something about American cops and circular logic.
It's not always circular logic per se, but still very incomprehensible contradictory behavior. For example, traffic cops love to demand drivers they have stopped to exit the car "for officer safety" (because the law gives them the right to make such a demand.)
But what happens if a driver exits the car proactively before the cop demands it? In the vast, vast majority of cases the cop will order the driver to remain in the car. I assume "for officer safety".
So which is it, is it safer for the officer if the driver is outside or inside the car? It seems they can't make up their minds.
(One would think that they wouldn't mind if the driver exits the car on his own, particularly if he does so in full view of the cop. After all, while sitting inside the car the driver could be doing lots of things hidden from view, such as grabbing a gun or something. While outside the car the cop can observe the driver in full view, without him being behind anything. But no. The driver has to remain inside the car because... officer safety, I suppose?)
Speaking of stopping cars, American cops show absolutely no qualms about stopping a car, walking to the driver's window, and then possibly arguing with the driver for half an hour if he is extremely uncooperative. The cop may even start demanding the driver to exit the car, argue about it for ten more minutes, then force the driver out by opening the door and reaching inside, still with zero fear about any particular danger from the driver (eg. him taking a hidden gun and starting shooting.) No fear whatsoever.
However, have the driver not stop immediately when signaled to stop, taking maybe half a minute to do so, or have the driver take off during the traffic stop and driving a few meters and then stopping again, and suddenly most traffic cops approach the situation like the driver is an extremely dangerous most wanted fugitive armed to the teeth who has just escaped a mass shooting where he shot ten civilians and twenty cops, and his car is full of loaded firearms and explosives.
Why do they do that, when they show literally zero fear of drivers otherwise? I genuinely have absolutely no idea.
In neither case can they see inside the car, particularly from afar, and thus they don't know if the driver might have firearms or something, nor can they see what the driver may be doing inside the car, or who the driver is, or anything. Literally the only difference is whether the driver stopped immediately or not (or whether he took off for a short distance or not). Nothing else. Everything else is exactly the same. So why the completely different attitude? What in "didn't immediately stop" tells the cop "approach this as if he's a dangerous wanted fugitive with loaded weapons ready to shoot", while "stopped very quickly" tells the cop "this is a completely safe driver, there's nothing to fear"?
I genuinely have absolutely no idea. I suppose understanding American cop logic is completely futile.
Comments
Post a Comment