Democratic Lawmaker threatens riots

Always in His Presence · Mar 18, 2024

Tennessee Lawmaker Threatens Riots After General Assembly Passes Pro-Police Bill

You can always count on a race-hustling Democratic politician to oppose an anti-crime bill whose aim is to promote public safety.

www.westernjournal.com

Tennessee state Sen. Charlane Oliver — a race-baiting Democrat — threatened to incite riots after the GOP-led Senate in Nashville approved an anti-crime bill that bars local governments from preventing the police from conducting routine traffic stops.

Senate Bill 2572 and its House counterpart, HR 1931, block local governments from enacting an ordinance that “prohibits or limits the ability of a law enforcement agency to conduct traffic stops based on observation of, or reasonable suspicion that, the operator or a passenger in a vehicle has violated a local ordinance or state or federal law.”

SB 2572 would nullify an ordinance passed last year by the Memphis City Council that barred the Memphis Police Department from making traffic stops for vehicles with expired tags or broken brake lights or headlights.

iluvatar5150 · Mar 18, 2024

hislegacy said:
Tennessee Lawmaker Threatens Riots After General Assembly Passes Pro-Police Bill

You can always count on a race-hustling Democratic politician to oppose an anti-crime bill whose aim is to promote public safety.

www.westernjournal.com

Tennessee state Sen. Charlane Oliver — a race-baiting Democrat — threatened to incite riots after the GOP-led Senate in Nashville approved an anti-crime bill that bars local governments from preventing the police from conducting routine traffic stops.

Senate Bill 2572 and its House counterpart, HR 1931, block local governments from enacting an ordinance that “prohibits or limits the ability of a law enforcement agency to conduct traffic stops based on observation of, or reasonable suspicion that, the operator or a passenger in a vehicle has violated a local ordinance or state or federal law.”

SB 2572 would nullify an ordinance passed last year by the Memphis City Council that barred the Memphis Police Department from making traffic stops for vehicles with expired tags or broken brake lights or headlights.

I guess we’ll see who knows whose audience better, Oliver or Trump - which one can filter out hyperbole and which one can’t.

DaisyDay · Mar 18, 2024

hislegacy said:
Tennessee Lawmaker Threatens Riots After General Assembly Passes Pro-Police Bill

You can always count on a race-hustling Democratic politician to oppose an anti-crime bill whose aim is to promote public safety.

www.westernjournal.com

Tennessee state Sen. Charlane Oliver — a race-baiting Democrat — threatened to incite riots after the GOP-led Senate in Nashville approved an anti-crime bill that bars local governments from preventing the police from conducting routine traffic stops.

Senate Bill 2572 and its House counterpart, HR 1931, block local governments from enacting an ordinance that “prohibits or limits the ability of a law enforcement agency to conduct traffic stops based on observation of, or reasonable suspicion that, the operator or a passenger in a vehicle has violated a local ordinance or state or federal law.”

SB 2572 would nullify an ordinance passed last year by the Memphis City Council that barred the Memphis Police Department from making traffic stops for vehicles with expired tags or broken brake lights or headlights.

No loaded language in that article!

GoldenBoy89 · Mar 18, 2024

"Race-hustling"?

Gee.. I wonder who this article is aimed at.

Hans Blaster · Mar 19, 2024

DaisyDay said:
No loaded language in that article!

It's the Western Journal. How could they resist inflammatory language?

Fantine · Mar 19, 2024

Hey, Republicans, the state is engaging in government overreach.

rambot · Mar 19, 2024

I fail to see how this 1 comment is as inflammatory as the entirety of Trump's J6 speech.

Anyone here able to predict exactly how much of an increase in black prosecution that is gonna come out of this law?

probinson · Mar 19, 2024

So this is all over allowing police to pull people over for broken/burned out taillights or expired registrations? I'm not black, and I've been pulled over for both of those things in my lifetime. Seems like an odd reason to call for riots.

rambot · Mar 19, 2024

probinson said:
So this is all over allowing police to pull people over for broken/burned out taillights or expired registrations? I'm not black, and I've been pulled over for both of those things in my lifetime. Seems like an odd reason to call for riots.

You know how there is SOME racism on a police force (simply because it's kinda unavoidable); even if that number is TINY, it is not 0. Policies like that give those officers carte blanche in targeting who they like.

Jsut as an FYI though, your characterization of the bill isn't quite correct....

"or reasonable suspicion" adds a bit of a wrinkle.

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Fiscal/FM2374.pdf

Prohibits local governments or officials from adopting or enacting policies that would prohibit or limit law enforcement’s ability to conduct traffic stops based on observation of or reasonable suspicion that the operator or a passenger in a vehicle has violated a local ordinance or state or federal law.

probinson · Mar 19, 2024

rambot said:
You know how there is SOME racism on a police force (simply because it's kinda unavoidable); even if that number is TINY, it is not 0.

That's true.

rambot said:
Policies like that give those officers carte blanche in targeting who they like.

Or to pull over people with broken taillights.

Are you suggesting that if someone has a taillight out, the police should NOT be able to pull them over?

rambot said:
Jsut as an FYI though, your characterization of the bill isn't quite correct....

"or reasonable suspicion" adds a bit of a wrinkle.

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Fiscal/FM2374.pdf

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure "reasonable suspicion" has always been a valid, legal concept

What Is Reasonable Suspicion?

Reasonable suspicion is crucial in the criminal process but what is it, and how does it impact a case?

www.hesterlawgroup.com

rambot · Mar 19, 2024

probinson said:
That's true.

Are you suggesting that if someone has a taillight out, the police should NOT be able to pull them over?

I'm suggesting that inconsistencies in application of the law by certain police officers would allow for injustices to occur.

probinson · Mar 19, 2024

rambot said:
I'm suggesting that inconsistencies in application of the law by certain police officers would allow for injustices to occur.

OK.

But do you think that police officers should be allowed to pull people over if they have a taillight our or an expired vehicle registration?

iluvatar5150 · Mar 19, 2024

probinson said:
OK.

But do you think that police officers should be allowed to pull people over if they have a taillight our or an expired vehicle registration?

You didn't ask me, but my take is that, while I don't have a problem with it in theory, I question the wisdom and utility of it. Traffic stops are dangerous - they often require officers to walk near traffic and it's very easy for either side to escalate into a conflict even when no other criminality had been taking place. If the goal is to get the taillight fixed or the registration renewed, then that's a lot of risk for very little upside. If the goal is to use the stop as a pretext to investigate other potentially illegal behavior, then it seems to me that there are wiser, safer ways to do it than to have officers approach a vehicle alone (or with at most one partner), next to traffic, with limited visibility on the occupants.

rambot · Mar 19, 2024

probinson said:
OK.

But do you think that police officers should be allowed to pull people over if they have a taillight our or an expired vehicle registration?

Not if they have a predisposition for applying the laws unequally.

probinson · Mar 19, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
You didn't ask me, but my take is that, while I don't have a problem with it in theory, I question the wisdom and utility of it. Traffic stops are dangerous - they often require officers to walk near traffic and it's very easy for either side to escalate into a conflict even when no other criminality had been taking place. If the goal is to get the taillight fixed or the registration renewed, then that's a lot of risk for very little upside.

Interesting perspective.

Do you feel the same way about pulling someone over for speeding or other traffic violations?

iluvatar5150 · Mar 19, 2024

probinson said:
Interesting perspective.

Do you feel the same way about pulling someone over for speeding or other traffic violations?

I see things as kind of a sliding scale where the net outcome of the stop shouldn't be an elevated level of risk. There is no safety risk from an expired registration or broken taillight, so using it as a pretext for a stop seems silly.

Speeding and other moving violations, OTOH, pose safety issues in the moment. Stopping the vehicle stops the safety issue from continuing. If the driver refuses to stop, then I'd seriously question whether chasing them is wise. I won't say it's never worth it, but I'd put that bar pretty high.

Even though I'm not diametrically opposed to stops for moving violations, I am very much in favor of expanded use of traffic cameras that attach tickets to vehicles instead of drivers, along with heavy enforcement of outstanding tickets against vehicles, e.g. vehicles with >X number of tickets or >$Y in outstanding fines get towed and impounded. You don't even have to stop moving vehicles. You can get them when they're parked.

probinson · Mar 19, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
I see things as kind of a sliding scale where the net outcome of the stop shouldn't be an elevated level of risk. There is no safety risk from an expired registration or broken taillight, so using it as a pretext for a stop seems silly.\

An expired registration may not pose a safety risk, but a broken taillight certainly could. Especially if one is driving in the dark with no taillights.

iluvatar5150 said:
Speeding and other moving violations, OTOH, pose safety issues in the moment.

Arguable. There's a lot of speeding tickets issued that don't really have anything at all to do with "safety".

iluvatar5150 said:
Stopping the vehicle stops the safety issue from continuing. If the driver refuses to stop, then I'd seriously question whether chasing them is wise. I won't say it's never worth it, but I'd put that bar pretty high.

High-speed chases are incredibly dangerous.

iluvatar5150 said:
Even though I'm not diametrically opposed to stops for moving violations, I am very much in favor of expanded use of traffic cameras that attach tickets to vehicles instead of drivers, along with heavy enforcement of outstanding tickets against vehicles, e.g. vehicles with >X number of tickets or >$Y in outstanding fines get towed and impounded. You don't even have to stop moving vehicles. You can get them when they're parked.

Not sure I would agree with that. It may sound good in theory, but I 'm not a fan of encouraging more of a surveillance state.

probinson · Mar 19, 2024

rambot said:
Not if they have a predisposition for applying the laws unequally.

Hmm. So who gets to decide which police officers can make these traffic stops and which ones can't?

iluvatar5150 · Mar 19, 2024

probinson said:
An expired registration may not pose a safety risk, but a broken taillight certainly could. Especially if one is driving in the dark with no taillights.

Sure. I'm just trying to illustrate that I think one ought to take stock of the whole situation and judge whether a stop is worth it. If someone's got both lights out, then maybe it is warranted.

probinson said:
Not sure I would agree with that. It may sound good in theory, but I 'm not a fan of encouraging more of a surveillance state.

I hear this a lot (my city is leaning more and more heavily on cameras every year) and I honestly don't see what the issue is.

Would you have a problem with a cop sitting at the intersection waiting to nab people speeding or running the light? If not, then what's the problem with a camera? IME, the fines are usually enough to sting a bit but not be devastating for the poor. And people learn pretty quickly how to not trip the cameras, which means they're abiding by the rules at least in the coverage areas.

The problems arise when people ignore the citations. As with a parking ticket, the fine is levied against the car, not the driver, so lots of folks just don't pay them and assume (often correctly) that the car won't get caught and towed.

Always in His Presence · Mar 19, 2024

Remember - Democratic causes do not riot - they have fiery, but mostly peaceful protest

Democratic Lawmaker threatens riots

Jesus is the only Way

Well-Known Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

We're Still Here

On August Recess

Dona Quixote

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Jesus is the only Way

Similar threads