Mink and Jawando propose to limit pull over offenses in Moco

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCo Police Chief Marcus Jones is not a fan of Jawando's plan.....

https://wjla.com/news/local/crime-law-enforcement-leaders-video-7news-interviews-montgomery-county-police-chief-marcus-jones-traffic-stops-traffic-fatalities-homicides#

A person who is in charge of an agency is not a fan of a plan to restrict what the agency can do? In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

Or…

A person with a firm understanding of policing / public safety is not a fan of a plan that lacks common sense and demonstrates little understanding of public safety needs.

I’m a teacher. This reminds me of times central office staff members who know nothing about the nuances of my job try to tell me how to do it. Their interruptions merely cause curriculum disruptions. This plan, by contrast, can actually cost lives.

MCPD independently decided to reduce the number of traffic stops they conduct to a third of the level they did pre pandemic. What reason did they give? Is it the vacancies in the department? No. Was it other work demands? No. Was it a directive from the Council? No. It is "the rhetoric". They are the ones costing lives, not some bill (that will never pass) that targets low level offenses.

Just like teachers aren't always right, neither are police. Look at the history of this country. We did wait for farmers to decide they didn't need slaves. We didn't wait for bus drivers to say they didn't need to segregate the buses. Community activism has driven a lot of really important change in this country. You're suggesting we dismiss them out of hand because they are not the police. That's not a reasonable position.

You've posted this nonsense before. You heard the Chief reference that the rhetoric is discouraging and is affecting performance, correct? Well, my performance will also be affected if I'm kicked repeatedly when I'm down. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "kicking.") As for your work stoppage comment, I'm sure you understand that police do FAR MORE than traffic stops. I'm sure you are aware that they first and foremost answer calls. Staffing is way down and calls are way up. Guess what that means? They can't do as much traffic enforcement because they are constantly running calls. Your perceived work stoppage is actually them working harder in another area.

As for teachers and police not always being right... there you are correct. Guess who else isn't always right? Politicans who have an ax to grind with police. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "ax to grind.") I'm comfortable dismissing their comments because they don't come from a genuine, honest place.

As for community activism, I'm actually a big fan. This isn't community activism. This is dangerous, and I care about my community.

They are risking people's lives to make a political point no matter how you dress it up.

Bad policing also risks people's lives, and I'm interested to know how you assessed whether or not they're sincere.

Neither of them have established an iota of ethos. Both have spent the last several years lambasting police (both locally and nationally) at every available opportunity. Jawando in particular paints the department as the enemy of Montgomery County, which does a tremendous disservice to the residents of this county who rely on our police department. The most recent example of their lack of trustworthiness? Holding a public forum about public safety in which most people say they want MORE enforcement, and then introducing this absolute farce of a bill. He doesn't listen, and I am convinced that's because he doesn't care.

Yes, bad policing costs lives. We all know that, and the department is making active steps toward improvement. What also costs lives? Traffic violations. How the heck can this county promote Vision Zero and simultaneously pass this bill? One contradicts the other. Clearly.

Specifically: drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, failure to obey traffic signals and stop signs, failure to stop for people in crosswalks.

Licensing or registration, window tinting, and defective headlights or tail lights do not kill people.

What a stupid post.

Window tinting is banned in nearly every single state because it makes it harder for other drivers and pedestrians to see how the driver is communicating with bodily movements, which makes driving less safe. I also makes it harder to see cars and pedestrians at night, which can cost lives. Driving around without working headlights and taillights, heck petty uch a without a well maintained car, is a ridiculously stupid hazard that's preventable with enforcement that can't stop serious bodily harm before it happens. Licensing and registration requires maintenance for your car and emissions testing. I guess you like more pollution in the environment?

Now none of that will be enforced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw, so say they aren't doing "as much" traffic enforcement is a bit of an understatement. They are doing less than half of what they used to do. Vacancies and increased calls fur service will not explain that, that is why they themselves blame "the rhetoric"

Let's play with your presumption for a moment. If you are an officer in this county, and you know that one unfortunate incident can make you lose your entire livelihood even if you made the absolutely correct decision in the moment using all of your knowledge, experience, training, and respect for life, would you want to be proactive? Would you, seriously?

What you are describing is a work stoppage. You may think it is justified but stop lying that it is about vacancies or work demands.

Please enroll in the Citizen's Academy. It may gain you some empathy and some understanding. Any councilmenbers reading this should also consider this opportunity.

And no, this isn't describing a work stoppage. It's descibing an impossible situation. I'm not an officer, but I know many. I have taken the time to learn.

Funny thing, I know someone who did the Citizen's Academy and is still way more towards the reform-the-police end of the scale than the defend-the-police end of the scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCo Police Chief Marcus Jones is not a fan of Jawando's plan.....

https://wjla.com/news/local/crime-law-enforcement-leaders-video-7news-interviews-montgomery-county-police-chief-marcus-jones-traffic-stops-traffic-fatalities-homicides#

A person who is in charge of an agency is not a fan of a plan to restrict what the agency can do? In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

Or…

A person with a firm understanding of policing / public safety is not a fan of a plan that lacks common sense and demonstrates little understanding of public safety needs.

I’m a teacher. This reminds me of times central office staff members who know nothing about the nuances of my job try to tell me how to do it. Their interruptions merely cause curriculum disruptions. This plan, by contrast, can actually cost lives.

MCPD independently decided to reduce the number of traffic stops they conduct to a third of the level they did pre pandemic. What reason did they give? Is it the vacancies in the department? No. Was it other work demands? No. Was it a directive from the Council? No. It is "the rhetoric". They are the ones costing lives, not some bill (that will never pass) that targets low level offenses.

Just like teachers aren't always right, neither are police. Look at the history of this country. We did wait for farmers to decide they didn't need slaves. We didn't wait for bus drivers to say they didn't need to segregate the buses. Community activism has driven a lot of really important change in this country. You're suggesting we dismiss them out of hand because they are not the police. That's not a reasonable position.

You've posted this nonsense before. You heard the Chief reference that the rhetoric is discouraging and is affecting performance, correct? Well, my performance will also be affected if I'm kicked repeatedly when I'm down. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "kicking.") As for your work stoppage comment, I'm sure you understand that police do FAR MORE than traffic stops. I'm sure you are aware that they first and foremost answer calls. Staffing is way down and calls are way up. Guess what that means? They can't do as much traffic enforcement because they are constantly running calls. Your perceived work stoppage is actually them working harder in another area.

As for teachers and police not always being right... there you are correct. Guess who else isn't always right? Politicans who have an ax to grind with police. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "ax to grind.") I'm comfortable dismissing their comments because they don't come from a genuine, honest place.

As for community activism, I'm actually a big fan. This isn't community activism. This is dangerous, and I care about my community.

They are risking people's lives to make a political point no matter how you dress it up.

Bad policing also risks people's lives, and I'm interested to know how you assessed whether or not they're sincere.

Neither of them have established an iota of ethos. Both have spent the last several years lambasting police (both locally and nationally) at every available opportunity. Jawando in particular paints the department as the enemy of Montgomery County, which does a tremendous disservice to the residents of this county who rely on our police department. The most recent example of their lack of trustworthiness? Holding a public forum about public safety in which most people say they want MORE enforcement, and then introducing this absolute farce of a bill. He doesn't listen, and I am convinced that's because he doesn't care.

Yes, bad policing costs lives. We all know that, and the department is making active steps toward improvement. What also costs lives? Traffic violations. How the heck can this county promote Vision Zero and simultaneously pass this bill? One contradicts the other. Clearly.

Specifically: drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, failure to obey traffic signals and stop signs, failure to stop for people in crosswalks.

Licensing or registration, window tinting, and defective headlights or tail lights do not kill people.

What a stupid post.

Window tinting is banned in nearly every single state because it makes it harder for other drivers and pedestrians to see how the driver is communicating with bodily movements, which makes driving less safe. I also makes it harder to see cars and pedestrians at night, which can cost lives. Driving around without working headlights and taillights, heck petty uch a without a well maintained car, is a ridiculously stupid hazard that's preventable with enforcement that can't stop serious bodily harm before it happens. Licensing and registration requires maintenance for your car and emissions testing. I guess you like more pollution in the environment?

Now none of that will be enforced.

Having sindow tinting or defective headlights or taillights might, INDIRECTLY, cost lives. Drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, failure to obey traffic control devices, failure to stop for people in crosswalks, and failure to wear a seat belt DIRECTLY cost lives. So, if you're trying to prevent loss of life, which set of behaviors should be the priority for enforcement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCo Police Chief Marcus Jones is not a fan of Jawando's plan.....

https://wjla.com/news/local/crime-law-enforcement-leaders-video-7news-interviews-montgomery-county-police-chief-marcus-jones-traffic-stops-traffic-fatalities-homicides#

A person who is in charge of an agency is not a fan of a plan to restrict what the agency can do? In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

Or…

A person with a firm understanding of policing / public safety is not a fan of a plan that lacks common sense and demonstrates little understanding of public safety needs.

I’m a teacher. This reminds me of times central office staff members who know nothing about the nuances of my job try to tell me how to do it. Their interruptions merely cause curriculum disruptions. This plan, by contrast, can actually cost lives.

MCPD independently decided to reduce the number of traffic stops they conduct to a third of the level they did pre pandemic. What reason did they give? Is it the vacancies in the department? No. Was it other work demands? No. Was it a directive from the Council? No. It is "the rhetoric". They are the ones costing lives, not some bill (that will never pass) that targets low level offenses.

Just like teachers aren't always right, neither are police. Look at the history of this country. We did wait for farmers to decide they didn't need slaves. We didn't wait for bus drivers to say they didn't need to segregate the buses. Community activism has driven a lot of really important change in this country. You're suggesting we dismiss them out of hand because they are not the police. That's not a reasonable position.

You've posted this nonsense before. You heard the Chief reference that the rhetoric is discouraging and is affecting performance, correct? Well, my performance will also be affected if I'm kicked repeatedly when I'm down. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "kicking.") As for your work stoppage comment, I'm sure you understand that police do FAR MORE than traffic stops. I'm sure you are aware that they first and foremost answer calls. Staffing is way down and calls are way up. Guess what that means? They can't do as much traffic enforcement because they are constantly running calls. Your perceived work stoppage is actually them working harder in another area.

As for teachers and police not always being right... there you are correct. Guess who else isn't always right? Politicans who have an ax to grind with police. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "ax to grind.") I'm comfortable dismissing their comments because they don't come from a genuine, honest place.

As for community activism, I'm actually a big fan. This isn't community activism. This is dangerous, and I care about my community.

They are risking people's lives to make a political point no matter how you dress it up.

Bad policing also risks people's lives, and I'm interested to know how you assessed whether or not they're sincere.

Neither of them have established an iota of ethos. Both have spent the last several years lambasting police (both locally and nationally) at every available opportunity. Jawando in particular paints the department as the enemy of Montgomery County, which does a tremendous disservice to the residents of this county who rely on our police department. The most recent example of their lack of trustworthiness? Holding a public forum about public safety in which most people say they want MORE enforcement, and then introducing this absolute farce of a bill. He doesn't listen, and I am convinced that's because he doesn't care.

Yes, bad policing costs lives. We all know that, and the department is making active steps toward improvement. What also costs lives? Traffic violations. How the heck can this county promote Vision Zero and simultaneously pass this bill? One contradicts the other. Clearly.

Specifically: drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, failure to obey traffic signals and stop signs, failure to stop for people in crosswalks.

Licensing or registration, window tinting, and defective headlights or tail lights do not kill people.

What a stupid post.

Window tinting is banned in nearly every single state because it makes it harder for other drivers and pedestrians to see how the driver is communicating with bodily movements, which makes driving less safe. I also makes it harder to see cars and pedestrians at night, which can cost lives. Driving around without working headlights and taillights, heck petty uch a without a well maintained car, is a ridiculously stupid hazard that's preventable with enforcement that can't stop serious bodily harm before it happens. Licensing and registration requires maintenance for your car and emissions testing. I guess you like more pollution in the environment?

Now none of that will be enforced.

Having sindow tinting or defective headlights or taillights might, INDIRECTLY, cost lives. Drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, failure to obey traffic control devices, failure to stop for people in crosswalks, and failure to wear a seat belt DIRECTLY cost lives. So, if you're trying to prevent loss of life, which set of behaviors should be the priority for enforcement?

Hey nitwit, maybe all can be true at the same time..

Tinted windows make so much sense that the world's best engineers at major auto makers include them in their car deainga when they're making new cars that have to consider modern safety standards.

Oh wait that's right..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw, so say they aren't doing "as much" traffic enforcement is a bit of an understatement. They are doing less than half of what they used to do. Vacancies and increased calls fur service will not explain that, that is why they themselves blame "the rhetoric"

Let's play with your presumption for a moment. If you are an officer in this county, and you know that one unfortunate incident can make you lose your entire livelihood even if you made the absolutely correct decision in the moment using all of your knowledge, experience, training, and respect for life, would you want to be proactive? Would you, seriously?

Given that the threat of losing their entire livelihood this does not seem to stop some police officers from making blatantly wrong decisions?

And THERE it is.

I wrote "absolutely correct decision in the moment using all of your knowledge, experience, training, and respect for life". You read that as "blatantly wrong."

So best, honorable, knowledgeable intentions are = "blatantly wrong."

I'm not an officer, but I have no problem seeing how doing the job just got astonomically harder. My best decision at a terrible moment may ruin my life, and that of my family?

No, blatantly wrong decisions are blatantly wrong decisions. Police officers (some police officers) make blatantly wrong decisions. You agree with this statement, right? Sometimes, some police officers make blatantly wrong decisions? Like shooting people in the back while they are fleeing, or pulling people out of their cars and beating them, or engaging in high-speed chases in crowded areas, or firing their guns when they don't know where the bullets will go? And they do this despite the possibility that they may lose their entire livelihood. Why does this possibility not stop them from making blatantly wrong decisions?

Of course officers can make blatantly wrong decisions, and there should be consequences for those. My scenario wasn’t about a blatantly wrong decision. It was about a correct decision, using all of the officer’s training and best intentions. The fact you immediately defaulted to “blatantly wrong” when that’s not what my question was about illustrates my concern perfectly. Officers may fear losing all even if they do what was the best, most reasoned choice in a bad situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCo Police Chief Marcus Jones is not a fan of Jawando's plan.....

https://wjla.com/news/local/crime-law-enforcement-leaders-video-7news-interviews-montgomery-county-police-chief-marcus-jones-traffic-stops-traffic-fatalities-homicides#

A person who is in charge of an agency is not a fan of a plan to restrict what the agency can do? In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

Or…

A person with a firm understanding of policing / public safety is not a fan of a plan that lacks common sense and demonstrates little understanding of public safety needs.

I’m a teacher. This reminds me of times central office staff members who know nothing about the nuances of my job try to tell me how to do it. Their interruptions merely cause curriculum disruptions. This plan, by contrast, can actually cost lives.

MCPD independently decided to reduce the number of traffic stops they conduct to a third of the level they did pre pandemic. What reason did they give? Is it the vacancies in the department? No. Was it other work demands? No. Was it a directive from the Council? No. It is "the rhetoric". They are the ones costing lives, not some bill (that will never pass) that targets low level offenses.

Just like teachers aren't always right, neither are police. Look at the history of this country. We did wait for farmers to decide they didn't need slaves. We didn't wait for bus drivers to say they didn't need to segregate the buses. Community activism has driven a lot of really important change in this country. You're suggesting we dismiss them out of hand because they are not the police. That's not a reasonable position.

You've posted this nonsense before. You heard the Chief reference that the rhetoric is discouraging and is affecting performance, correct? Well, my performance will also be affected if I'm kicked repeatedly when I'm down. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "kicking.") As for your work stoppage comment, I'm sure you understand that police do FAR MORE than traffic stops. I'm sure you are aware that they first and foremost answer calls. Staffing is way down and calls are way up. Guess what that means? They can't do as much traffic enforcement because they are constantly running calls. Your perceived work stoppage is actually them working harder in another area.

As for teachers and police not always being right... there you are correct. Guess who else isn't always right? Politicans who have an ax to grind with police. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "ax to grind.") I'm comfortable dismissing their comments because they don't come from a genuine, honest place.

As for community activism, I'm actually a big fan. This isn't community activism. This is dangerous, and I care about my community.

They are risking people's lives to make a political point no matter how you dress it up.

Bad policing also risks people's lives, and I'm interested to know how you assessed whether or not they're sincere.

Neither of them have established an iota of ethos. Both have spent the last several years lambasting police (both locally and nationally) at every available opportunity. Jawando in particular paints the department as the enemy of Montgomery County, which does a tremendous disservice to the residents of this county who rely on our police department. The most recent example of their lack of trustworthiness? Holding a public forum about public safety in which most people say they want MORE enforcement, and then introducing this absolute farce of a bill. He doesn't listen, and I am convinced that's because he doesn't care.

Yes, bad policing costs lives. We all know that, and the department is making active steps toward improvement. What also costs lives? Traffic violations. How the heck can this county promote Vision Zero and simultaneously pass this bill? One contradicts the other. Clearly.

Specifically: drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, failure to obey traffic signals and stop signs, failure to stop for people in crosswalks.

Licensing or registration, window tinting, and defective headlights or tail lights do not kill people.

What a stupid post.

Window tinting is banned in nearly every single state because it makes it harder for other drivers and pedestrians to see how the driver is communicating with bodily movements, which makes driving less safe. I also makes it harder to see cars and pedestrians at night, which can cost lives. Driving around without working headlights and taillights, heck petty uch a without a well maintained car, is a ridiculously stupid hazard that's preventable with enforcement that can't stop serious bodily harm before it happens. Licensing and registration requires maintenance for your car and emissions testing. I guess you like more pollution in the environment?

Now none of that will be enforced.

Having sindow tinting or defective headlights or taillights might, INDIRECTLY, cost lives. Drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, failure to obey traffic control devices, failure to stop for people in crosswalks, and failure to wear a seat belt DIRECTLY cost lives. So, if you're trying to prevent loss of life, which set of behaviors should be the priority for enforcement?

Hey nitwit, maybe all can be true at the same time..

Tinted windows make so much sense that the world's best engineers at major auto makers include them in their car deainga when they're making new cars that have to consider modern safety standards.

Oh wait that's right..

No, they can't all be true at the same time, because there are only so many police officers working so many hours. Which set of behaviors should be the priority for enforcement, the ones where we know that they directly kill people, or the ones where we believe they might indirectly kill people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw, so say they aren't doing "as much" traffic enforcement is a bit of an understatement. They are doing less than half of what they used to do. Vacancies and increased calls fur service will not explain that, that is why they themselves blame "the rhetoric"

Let's play with your presumption for a moment. If you are an officer in this county, and you know that one unfortunate incident can make you lose your entire livelihood even if you made the absolutely correct decision in the moment using all of your knowledge, experience, training, and respect for life, would you want to be proactive? Would you, seriously?

Given that the threat of losing their entire livelihood this does not seem to stop some police officers from making blatantly wrong decisions?

And THERE it is.

I wrote "absolutely correct decision in the moment using all of your knowledge, experience, training, and respect for life". You read that as "blatantly wrong."

So best, honorable, knowledgeable intentions are = "blatantly wrong."

I'm not an officer, but I have no problem seeing how doing the job just got astonomically harder. My best decision at a terrible moment may ruin my life, and that of my family?

No, blatantly wrong decisions are blatantly wrong decisions. Police officers (some police officers) make blatantly wrong decisions. You agree with this statement, right? Sometimes, some police officers make blatantly wrong decisions? Like shooting people in the back while they are fleeing, or pulling people out of their cars and beating them, or engaging in high-speed chases in crowded areas, or firing their guns when they don't know where the bullets will go? And they do this despite the possibility that they may lose their entire livelihood. Why does this possibility not stop them from making blatantly wrong decisions?

Of course officers can make blatantly wrong decisions, and there should be consequences for those. My scenario wasn’t about a blatantly wrong decision. It was about a correct decision, using all of the officer’s training and best intentions. The fact you immediately defaulted to “blatantly wrong” when that’s not what my question was about illustrates my concern perfectly. Officers may fear losing all even if they do what was the best, most reasoned choice in a bad situation.

I will try to explain this again.

We know that sometimes officers make blatantly wrong decisions, even though this may result in them losing their livelihoods. Right? We agree on that. Fear of losing their livelihoods does not stop some officers from making blatantly wrong decisions. Sometimes, some officers make blatantly wrong decisions and then lose their livelihoods. Other times - in fact quite commonly - officers who made blatantly wrong decisions do NOT lose their livelihoods. The municipality (city, county, whatever) makes a payment to the victim, with taxpayer money; the officers keep their jobs. So, why are you worrying about officers making decisions that are not blatantly wrong and then losing their livelihoods?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCo Police Chief Marcus Jones is not a fan of Jawando's plan.....

https://wjla.com/news/local/crime-law-enforcement-leaders-video-7news-interviews-montgomery-county-police-chief-marcus-jones-traffic-stops-traffic-fatalities-homicides#

A person who is in charge of an agency is not a fan of a plan to restrict what the agency can do? In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

Or…

A person with a firm understanding of policing / public safety is not a fan of a plan that lacks common sense and demonstrates little understanding of public safety needs.

I’m a teacher. This reminds me of times central office staff members who know nothing about the nuances of my job try to tell me how to do it. Their interruptions merely cause curriculum disruptions. This plan, by contrast, can actually cost lives.

MCPD independently decided to reduce the number of traffic stops they conduct to a third of the level they did pre pandemic. What reason did they give? Is it the vacancies in the department? No. Was it other work demands? No. Was it a directive from the Council? No. It is "the rhetoric". They are the ones costing lives, not some bill (that will never pass) that targets low level offenses.

Just like teachers aren't always right, neither are police. Look at the history of this country. We did wait for farmers to decide they didn't need slaves. We didn't wait for bus drivers to say they didn't need to segregate the buses. Community activism has driven a lot of really important change in this country. You're suggesting we dismiss them out of hand because they are not the police. That's not a reasonable position.

You've posted this nonsense before. You heard the Chief reference that the rhetoric is discouraging and is affecting performance, correct? Well, my performance will also be affected if I'm kicked repeatedly when I'm down. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "kicking.") As for your work stoppage comment, I'm sure you understand that police do FAR MORE than traffic stops. I'm sure you are aware that they first and foremost answer calls. Staffing is way down and calls are way up. Guess what that means? They can't do as much traffic enforcement because they are constantly running calls. Your perceived work stoppage is actually them working harder in another area.

As for teachers and police not always being right... there you are correct. Guess who else isn't always right? Politicans who have an ax to grind with police. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "ax to grind.") I'm comfortable dismissing their comments because they don't come from a genuine, honest place.

As for community activism, I'm actually a big fan. This isn't community activism. This is dangerous, and I care about my community.

They are risking people's lives to make a political point no matter how you dress it up.

Bad policing also risks people's lives, and I'm interested to know how you assessed whether or not they're sincere.

Neither of them have established an iota of ethos. Both have spent the last several years lambasting police (both locally and nationally) at every available opportunity. Jawando in particular paints the department as the enemy of Montgomery County, which does a tremendous disservice to the residents of this county who rely on our police department. The most recent example of their lack of trustworthiness? Holding a public forum about public safety in which most people say they want MORE enforcement, and then introducing this absolute farce of a bill. He doesn't listen, and I am convinced that's because he doesn't care.

Yes, bad policing costs lives. We all know that, and the department is making active steps toward improvement. What also costs lives? Traffic violations. How the heck can this county promote Vision Zero and simultaneously pass this bill? One contradicts the other. Clearly.

Specifically: drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, failure to obey traffic signals and stop signs, failure to stop for people in crosswalks.

Licensing or registration, window tinting, and defective headlights or tail lights do not kill people.

What a stupid post.

Window tinting is banned in nearly every single state because it makes it harder for other drivers and pedestrians to see how the driver is communicating with bodily movements, which makes driving less safe. I also makes it harder to see cars and pedestrians at night, which can cost lives. Driving around without working headlights and taillights, heck petty uch a without a well maintained car, is a ridiculously stupid hazard that's preventable with enforcement that can't stop serious bodily harm before it happens. Licensing and registration requires maintenance for your car and emissions testing. I guess you like more pollution in the environment?

Now none of that will be enforced.

Having sindow tinting or defective headlights or taillights might, INDIRECTLY, cost lives. Drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, failure to obey traffic control devices, failure to stop for people in crosswalks, and failure to wear a seat belt DIRECTLY cost lives. So, if you're trying to prevent loss of life, which set of behaviors should be the priority for enforcement?

Hey nitwit, maybe all can be true at the same time..

Tinted windows make so much sense that the world's best engineers at major auto makers include them in their car deainga when they're making new cars that have to consider modern safety standards.

Oh wait that's right..

OEM tint is legal. aftermarket tint may be took dark and impair visibility. it is not legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCo Police Chief Marcus Jones is not a fan of Jawando's plan.....

https://wjla.com/news/local/crime-law-enforcement-leaders-video-7news-interviews-montgomery-county-police-chief-marcus-jones-traffic-stops-traffic-fatalities-homicides#

A person who is in charge of an agency is not a fan of a plan to restrict what the agency can do? In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

Or…

A person with a firm understanding of policing / public safety is not a fan of a plan that lacks common sense and demonstrates little understanding of public safety needs.

I’m a teacher. This reminds me of times central office staff members who know nothing about the nuances of my job try to tell me how to do it. Their interruptions merely cause curriculum disruptions. This plan, by contrast, can actually cost lives.

MCPD independently decided to reduce the number of traffic stops they conduct to a third of the level they did pre pandemic. What reason did they give? Is it the vacancies in the department? No. Was it other work demands? No. Was it a directive from the Council? No. It is "the rhetoric". They are the ones costing lives, not some bill (that will never pass) that targets low level offenses.

Just like teachers aren't always right, neither are police. Look at the history of this country. We did wait for farmers to decide they didn't need slaves. We didn't wait for bus drivers to say they didn't need to segregate the buses. Community activism has driven a lot of really important change in this country. You're suggesting we dismiss them out of hand because they are not the police. That's not a reasonable position.

You've posted this nonsense before. You heard the Chief reference that the rhetoric is discouraging and is affecting performance, correct? Well, my performance will also be affected if I'm kicked repeatedly when I'm down. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "kicking.") As for your work stoppage comment, I'm sure you understand that police do FAR MORE than traffic stops. I'm sure you are aware that they first and foremost answer calls. Staffing is way down and calls are way up. Guess what that means? They can't do as much traffic enforcement because they are constantly running calls. Your perceived work stoppage is actually them working harder in another area.

As for teachers and police not always being right... there you are correct. Guess who else isn't always right? Politicans who have an ax to grind with police. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "ax to grind.") I'm comfortable dismissing their comments because they don't come from a genuine, honest place.

As for community activism, I'm actually a big fan. This isn't community activism. This is dangerous, and I care about my community.

They are risking people's lives to make a political point no matter how you dress it up.

Bad policing also risks people's lives, and I'm interested to know how you assessed whether or not they're sincere.

Neither of them have established an iota of ethos. Both have spent the last several years lambasting police (both locally and nationally) at every available opportunity. Jawando in particular paints the department as the enemy of Montgomery County, which does a tremendous disservice to the residents of this county who rely on our police department. The most recent example of their lack of trustworthiness? Holding a public forum about public safety in which most people say they want MORE enforcement, and then introducing this absolute farce of a bill. He doesn't listen, and I am convinced that's because he doesn't care.

Yes, bad policing costs lives. We all know that, and the department is making active steps toward improvement. What also costs lives? Traffic violations. How the heck can this county promote Vision Zero and simultaneously pass this bill? One contradicts the other. Clearly.

Specifically: drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, failure to obey traffic signals and stop signs, failure to stop for people in crosswalks.

Licensing or registration, window tinting, and defective headlights or tail lights do not kill people.

What a stupid post.

Window tinting is banned in nearly every single state because it makes it harder for other drivers and pedestrians to see how the driver is communicating with bodily movements, which makes driving less safe. I also makes it harder to see cars and pedestrians at night, which can cost lives. Driving around without working headlights and taillights, heck petty uch a without a well maintained car, is a ridiculously stupid hazard that's preventable with enforcement that can't stop serious bodily harm before it happens. Licensing and registration requires maintenance for your car and emissions testing. I guess you like more pollution in the environment?

Now none of that will be enforced.

Having sindow tinting or defective headlights or taillights might, INDIRECTLY, cost lives. Drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, failure to obey traffic control devices, failure to stop for people in crosswalks, and failure to wear a seat belt DIRECTLY cost lives. So, if you're trying to prevent loss of life, which set of behaviors should be the priority for enforcement?

Hey nitwit, maybe all can be true at the same time..

Tinted windows make so much sense that the world's best engineers at major auto makers include them in their car deainga when they're making new cars that have to consider modern safety standards.

Oh wait that's right..

No, they can't all be true at the same time, because there are only so many police officers working so many hours. Which set of behaviors should be the priority for enforcement, the ones where we know that they directly kill people, or the ones where we believe they might indirectly kill people?

Look, I know your feeble mind is capable only of thinking in binary terms, but you also ignore all of the hazards window tinting imposes on pedestrians and for other members of them public like bicyclists, because tinting reduces visibility, especially at night. Car drivers with tinted windows drive around a lot more than they'd drive drunk.

You probably also didn't consider the fact that it also makes police work harder during things like chases after a murder or robbery. It makes it harder for police to see how many passengers are in cars, so if they have to chase, they don't know how much force or what kind of actions are appropriate. For example, if a suspect murders his wife and steals the kids, why should police have a harder time deciding whether or not to ram the car when he flees because they can't tell if there are kids in the car?

There's a reason why window tinting is banned in every state and there are even federal laws requiring makers to allow a certain amount of light through windows. There's a reason why we require functional headlights and taillights, so other drivers can tell when the person in front of them is stopping, for example. There's a reason we require registration, because it requires drivers to have a maintained car to cut down on air pollution.

Why have any laws at this point? You know where else they have zero laws and enforcement wrt window tinting, registration, etc.? Pretty much only in the 3rd and developing 2nd world countries I've traveled to. I'm glad we have council members devolving our society into a developing 2nd world country with the standards of our laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw, so say they aren't doing "as much" traffic enforcement is a bit of an understatement. They are doing less than half of what they used to do. Vacancies and increased calls fur service will not explain that, that is why they themselves blame "the rhetoric"

Let's play with your presumption for a moment. If you are an officer in this county, and you know that one unfortunate incident can make you lose your entire livelihood even if you made the absolutely correct decision in the moment using all of your knowledge, experience, training, and respect for life, would you want to be proactive? Would you, seriously?

What you are describing is a work stoppage. You may think it is justified but stop lying that it is about vacancies or work demands.

Please enroll in the Citizen's Academy. It may gain you some empathy and some understanding. Any councilmenbers reading this should also consider this opportunity.

And no, this isn't describing a work stoppage. It's descibing an impossible situation. I'm not an officer, but I know many. I have taken the time to learn.

Over the past five years, how many MCPD officers have lost their livelihoods because they were accused of misconduct? AFAIK the only MCPD person who has been fired is the civilian assistant chief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw, so say they aren't doing "as much" traffic enforcement is a bit of an understatement. They are doing less than half of what they used to do. Vacancies and increased calls fur service will not explain that, that is why they themselves blame "the rhetoric"

Let's play with your presumption for a moment. If you are an officer in this county, and you know that one unfortunate incident can make you lose your entire livelihood even if you made the absolutely correct decision in the moment using all of your knowledge, experience, training, and respect for life, would you want to be proactive? Would you, seriously?

What you are describing is a work stoppage. You may think it is justified but stop lying that it is about vacancies or work demands.

Please enroll in the Citizen's Academy. It may gain you some empathy and some understanding. Any councilmenbers reading this should also consider this opportunity.

And no, this isn't describing a work stoppage. It's descibing an impossible situation. I'm not an officer, but I know many. I have taken the time to learn.

Over the past five years, how many MCPD officers have lost their livelihoods because they were accused of misconduct? AFAIK the only MCPD person who has been fired is the civilian assistant chief.

You think MCPS has fired *one* person in the last 5 years?!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw, so say they aren't doing "as much" traffic enforcement is a bit of an understatement. They are doing less than half of what they used to do. Vacancies and increased calls fur service will not explain that, that is why they themselves blame "the rhetoric"

Let's play with your presumption for a moment. If you are an officer in this county, and you know that one unfortunate incident can make you lose your entire livelihood even if you made the absolutely correct decision in the moment using all of your knowledge, experience, training, and respect for life, would you want to be proactive? Would you, seriously?

What you are describing is a work stoppage. You may think it is justified but stop lying that it is about vacancies or work demands.

Please enroll in the Citizen's Academy. It may gain you some empathy and some understanding. Any councilmenbers reading this should also consider this opportunity.

And no, this isn't describing a work stoppage. It's descibing an impossible situation. I'm not an officer, but I know many. I have taken the time to learn.

Over the past five years, how many MCPD officers have lost their livelihoods because they were accused of misconduct? AFAIK the only MCPD person who has been fired is the civilian assistant chief.

You think MCPS has fired *one* person in the last 5 years?!!

Feel free to share how many officers have been fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw, so say they aren't doing "as much" traffic enforcement is a bit of an understatement. They are doing less than half of what they used to do. Vacancies and increased calls fur service will not explain that, that is why they themselves blame "the rhetoric"

Let's play with your presumption for a moment. If you are an officer in this county, and you know that one unfortunate incident can make you lose your entire livelihood even if you made the absolutely correct decision in the moment using all of your knowledge, experience, training, and respect for life, would you want to be proactive? Would you, seriously?

What you are describing is a work stoppage. You may think it is justified but stop lying that it is about vacancies or work demands.

Please enroll in the Citizen's Academy. It may gain you some empathy and some understanding. Any councilmenbers reading this should also consider this opportunity.

And no, this isn't describing a work stoppage. It's descibing an impossible situation. I'm not an officer, but I know many. I have taken the time to learn.

Over the past five years, how many MCPD officers have lost their livelihoods because they were accused of misconduct? AFAIK the only MCPD person who has been fired is the civilian assistant chief.

That's a good question, isn't it?

https://conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/2022/09/06/montgomery-lawsuit-tests-boundaries-of-antons-law/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw, so say they aren't doing "as much" traffic enforcement is a bit of an understatement. They are doing less than half of what they used to do. Vacancies and increased calls fur service will not explain that, that is why they themselves blame "the rhetoric"

Let's play with your presumption for a moment. If you are an officer in this county, and you know that one unfortunate incident can make you lose your entire livelihood even if you made the absolutely correct decision in the moment using all of your knowledge, experience, training, and respect for life, would you want to be proactive? Would you, seriously?

What you are describing is a work stoppage. You may think it is justified but stop lying that it is about vacancies or work demands.

Please enroll in the Citizen's Academy. It may gain you some empathy and some understanding. Any councilmenbers reading this should also consider this opportunity.

And no, this isn't describing a work stoppage. It's descibing an impossible situation. I'm not an officer, but I know many. I have taken the time to learn.

Funny thing, I know someone who did the Citizen's Academy and is still way more towards the reform-the-police end of the scale than the defend-the-police end of the scale.

I have 5 LEOs in my family and I also have worked in private security and we all know that huge reform is needed. They all like and voted for Jawando. They are also highly educated (law school/masters degrees)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCo Police Chief Marcus Jones is not a fan of Jawando's plan.....

https://wjla.com/news/local/crime-law-enforcement-leaders-video-7news-interviews-montgomery-county-police-chief-marcus-jones-traffic-stops-traffic-fatalities-homicides#

A person who is in charge of an agency is not a fan of a plan to restrict what the agency can do? In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

Or…

A person with a firm understanding of policing / public safety is not a fan of a plan that lacks common sense and demonstrates little understanding of public safety needs.

I’m a teacher. This reminds me of times central office staff members who know nothing about the nuances of my job try to tell me how to do it. Their interruptions merely cause curriculum disruptions. This plan, by contrast, can actually cost lives.

MCPD independently decided to reduce the number of traffic stops they conduct to a third of the level they did pre pandemic. What reason did they give? Is it the vacancies in the department? No. Was it other work demands? No. Was it a directive from the Council? No. It is "the rhetoric". They are the ones costing lives, not some bill (that will never pass) that targets low level offenses.

Just like teachers aren't always right, neither are police. Look at the history of this country. We did wait for farmers to decide they didn't need slaves. We didn't wait for bus drivers to say they didn't need to segregate the buses. Community activism has driven a lot of really important change in this country. You're suggesting we dismiss them out of hand because they are not the police. That's not a reasonable position.

You've posted this nonsense before. You heard the Chief reference that the rhetoric is discouraging and is affecting performance, correct? Well, my performance will also be affected if I'm kicked repeatedly when I'm down. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "kicking.") As for your work stoppage comment, I'm sure you understand that police do FAR MORE than traffic stops. I'm sure you are aware that they first and foremost answer calls. Staffing is way down and calls are way up. Guess what that means? They can't do as much traffic enforcement because they are constantly running calls. Your perceived work stoppage is actually them working harder in another area.

As for teachers and police not always being right... there you are correct. Guess who else isn't always right? Politicans who have an ax to grind with police. (See Mink and Jawando's comments about police for examples of "ax to grind.") I'm comfortable dismissing their comments because they don't come from a genuine, honest place.

As for community activism, I'm actually a big fan. This isn't community activism. This is dangerous, and I care about my community.

They are risking people's lives to make a political point no matter how you dress it up.

Bad policing also risks people's lives, and I'm interested to know how you assessed whether or not they're sincere.

Neither of them have established an iota of ethos. Both have spent the last several years lambasting police (both locally and nationally) at every available opportunity. Jawando in particular paints the department as the enemy of Montgomery County, which does a tremendous disservice to the residents of this county who rely on our police department. The most recent example of their lack of trustworthiness? Holding a public forum about public safety in which most people say they want MORE enforcement, and then introducing this absolute farce of a bill. He doesn't listen, and I am convinced that's because he doesn't care.

Yes, bad policing costs lives. We all know that, and the department is making active steps toward improvement. What also costs lives? Traffic violations. How the heck can this county promote Vision Zero and simultaneously pass this bill? One contradicts the other. Clearly.

Specifically: drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, failure to obey traffic signals and stop signs, failure to stop for people in crosswalks.

Licensing or registration, window tinting, and defective headlights or tail lights do not kill people.

What a stupid post.

Window tinting is banned in nearly every single state because it makes it harder for other drivers and pedestrians to see how the driver is communicating with bodily movements, which makes driving less safe. I also makes it harder to see cars and pedestrians at night, which can cost lives. Driving around without working headlights and taillights, heck petty uch a without a well maintained car, is a ridiculously stupid hazard that's preventable with enforcement that can't stop serious bodily harm before it happens. Licensing and registration requires maintenance for your car and emissions testing. I guess you like more pollution in the environment?

Now none of that will be enforced.

Having sindow tinting or defective headlights or taillights might, INDIRECTLY, cost lives. Drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, failure to obey traffic control devices, failure to stop for people in crosswalks, and failure to wear a seat belt DIRECTLY cost lives. So, if you're trying to prevent loss of life, which set of behaviors should be the priority for enforcement?

Hey nitwit, maybe all can be true at the same time..

Tinted windows make so much sense that the world's best engineers at major auto makers include them in their car deainga when they're making new cars that have to consider modern safety standards.

Oh wait that's right..

No, they can't all be true at the same time, because there are only so many police officers working so many hours. Which set of behaviors should be the priority for enforcement, the ones where we know that they directly kill people, or the ones where we believe they might indirectly kill people?

Look, I know your feeble mind is capable only of thinking in binary terms, but you also ignore all of the hazards window tinting imposes on pedestrians and for other members of them public like bicyclists, because tinting reduces visibility, especially at night. Car drivers with tinted windows drive around a lot more than they'd drive drunk.

You probably also didn't consider the fact that it also makes police work harder during things like chases after a murder or robbery. It makes it harder for police to see how many passengers are in cars, so if they have to chase, they don't know how much force or what kind of actions are appropriate. For example, if a suspect murders his wife and steals the kids, why should police have a harder time deciding whether or not to ram the car when he flees because they can't tell if there are kids in the car?

There's a reason why window tinting is banned in every state and there are even federal laws requiring makers to allow a certain amount of light through windows. There's a reason why we require functional headlights and taillights, so other drivers can tell when the person in front of them is stopping, for example. There's a reason we require registration, because it requires drivers to have a maintained car to cut down on air pollution.

Why have any laws at this point? You know where else they have zero laws and enforcement wrt window tinting, registration, etc.? Pretty much only in the 3rd and developing 2nd world countries I've traveled to. I'm glad we have council members devolving our society into a developing 2nd world country with the standards of our laws.

If you think it should be a priority for police to go after window tinting because [reasons], go ahead and say so. Just don't say it's for preventing traffic deaths, because it's not.