Mink and Jawando propose to limit pull over offenses in Moco

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is about time the police start releasing this type of info about their work. Jawando and the anti police crowd have been controlling the entire narrative for the past three years, so when that's all people hear, they assume it must be true. and it's not. good policing helps keep the community safe.

And bad policing does the opposite.

You fix that by getting rid of bad policing. Not by getting rid of all policing. Wise use of pretext stops is great policing

Nobody is proposing getting rid of all policing.

Pretextual stops - aka lies - are bad policing.

I don't think you understand what pretext stops are. They are perfectly legal.

They can be both: legal, and lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s great! It’s nice to see a council member acknowledge good work by county employees.

Any from the public safety committee yet?

No. that is her district, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is about time the police start releasing this type of info about their work. Jawando and the anti police crowd have been controlling the entire narrative for the past three years, so when that's all people hear, they assume it must be true. and it's not. good policing helps keep the community safe.

And bad policing does the opposite.

You fix that by getting rid of bad policing. Not by getting rid of all policing. Wise use of pretext stops is great policing

Nobody is proposing getting rid of all policing.

Pretextual stops - aka lies - are bad policing.

I don't think you understand what pretext stops are. They are perfectly legal.

They can be both: legal, and lies.

Please explain how they are "lies."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s great! It’s nice to see a council member acknowledge good work by county employees.

Any from the public safety committee yet?

Based on the anonymous posts on DCUM, one would believe that all police officers are emotionally needy and in constant need of external validation and affirmation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is about time the police start releasing this type of info about their work. Jawando and the anti police crowd have been controlling the entire narrative for the past three years, so when that's all people hear, they assume it must be true. and it's not. good policing helps keep the community safe.

And bad policing does the opposite.

You fix that by getting rid of bad policing. Not by getting rid of all policing. Wise use of pretext stops is great policing

Nobody is proposing getting rid of all policing.

Pretextual stops - aka lies - are bad policing.

I don't think you understand what pretext stops are. They are perfectly legal.

They can be both: legal, and lies.

Please explain how they are "lies."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretext

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they will read this press release from MCPD that led to over 2000 fentanyl pills being taken off the streets.

https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail_Pol.aspx?Item_ID=42965

Non sequitur

Relevant, it was a traffic stop.

https://mocoshow.com/blog/mcpd-over-two-thousand-fentanyl-pills-recovered-following-traffic-stop/?fbclid=IwAR1vjqGfIAk9z3VfyQgQFu088BOOBlERK-QeqH7Wyp7hc4FDeFIRwR10AYY

It's interesting that they included a lot of information in the press release - but they didn't include the information about what the traffic stop was for. I, for one, would certainly like to know what it was for. It's not like a you can know or even presume, just from looking at a car going by, that the driver has a learner's permit which they are driving in violation of.

It was for window tint.

Moderately moco has the data montgomery info up on all the citations. first one listed is window tint

That doesn't mean it was for window tint. Especially because, if it was for window tint, why didn't the press release include this information?

Hi there. After seeing the data on the county system I asked county officials if the original stop was for window tint and was told that yes it was. Images in this article from the database.

https://moderatelymoco.com/over-2000-fentanyl-pills-confiscated-by-police-during-traffic-stop-triggered-by-window-tint-violation/

Thanks,
Moderately Moco

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is about time the police start releasing this type of info about their work. Jawando and the anti police crowd have been controlling the entire narrative for the past three years, so when that's all people hear, they assume it must be true. and it's not. good policing helps keep the community safe.

And bad policing does the opposite.

You fix that by getting rid of bad policing. Not by getting rid of all policing. Wise use of pretext stops is great policing

Nobody is proposing getting rid of all policing.

Pretextual stops - aka lies - are bad policing.

I don't think you understand what pretext stops are. They are perfectly legal.

They can be both: legal, and lies.

Please explain how they are "lies."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretext

So pulling someone over for crossing the yellow line to figure out if they are drunk or not is a lie. That's the only way police can get to DUI. Someone has to violate minor traffic laws first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they will read this press release from MCPD that led to over 2000 fentanyl pills being taken off the streets.

https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail_Pol.aspx?Item_ID=42965

Non sequitur

Relevant, it was a traffic stop.

https://mocoshow.com/blog/mcpd-over-two-thousand-fentanyl-pills-recovered-following-traffic-stop/?fbclid=IwAR1vjqGfIAk9z3VfyQgQFu088BOOBlERK-QeqH7Wyp7hc4FDeFIRwR10AYY

It's interesting that they included a lot of information in the press release - but they didn't include the information about what the traffic stop was for. I, for one, would certainly like to know what it was for. It's not like a you can know or even presume, just from looking at a car going by, that the driver has a learner's permit which they are driving in violation of.

It was for window tint.

Moderately moco has the data montgomery info up on all the citations. first one listed is window tint

That doesn't mean it was for window tint. Especially because, if it was for window tint, why didn't the press release include this information?

Hi there. After seeing the data on the county system I asked county officials if the original stop was for window tint and was told that yes it was. Images in this article from the database.

https://moderatelymoco.com/over-2000-fentanyl-pills-confiscated-by-police-during-traffic-stop-triggered-by-window-tint-violation/

Thanks,
Moderately Moco

Thank you for your work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s great! It’s nice to see a council member acknowledge good work by county employees.

Any from the public safety committee yet?

Based on the anonymous posts on DCUM, one would believe that all police officers are emotionally needy and in constant need of external validation and affirmation.

I’m a really, really good teacher. If I had to attend every faculty meeting and listen to how bad I am, I’d probably get upset. If I had restriction after restriction placed on me because my admin assumed I’m bad, I’d probably get upset.

You think “emotionally needy.” I think “abused.” I suppose it’s all a matter of perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s great! It’s nice to see a council member acknowledge good work by county employees.

Any from the public safety committee yet?

Based on the anonymous posts on DCUM, one would believe that all police officers are emotionally needy and in constant need of external validation and affirmation.

I’m a really, really good teacher. If I had to attend every faculty meeting and listen to how bad I am, I’d probably get upset. If I had restriction after restriction placed on me because my admin assumed I’m bad, I’d probably get upset.

You think “emotionally needy.” I think “abused.” I suppose it’s all a matter of perspective.

Thanks for an interesting point of view on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A member of the county’s Reimagining Public Safety Task force responded to this tweet, calling the council member’s comment disgusting “copaganda.”

It’s sick, really. If there’s any member of MCPD reading this: please know some of us see the tremendous lack of support you are up against. You really work in a hostile climate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A member of the county’s Reimagining Public Safety Task force responded to this tweet, calling the council member’s comment disgusting “copaganda.”

It’s sick, really. If there’s any member of MCPD reading this: please know some of us see the tremendous lack of support you are up against. You really work in a hostile climate.

That woman lives in my neighborhood. I remember her telling people on the listserv not to call police when they witnessed someone breaking into cars. I guess she prefers crime and fentanyl to making criminals feel uncomfortable. So ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A member of the county’s Reimagining Public Safety Task force responded to this tweet, calling the council member’s comment disgusting “copaganda.”

It’s sick, really. If there’s any member of MCPD reading this: please know some of us see the tremendous lack of support you are up against. You really work in a hostile climate.

this bill is going to die in flames and they feel their power over politicians slipping away

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s great! It’s nice to see a council member acknowledge good work by county employees.

Any from the public safety committee yet?

Based on the anonymous posts on DCUM, one would believe that all police officers are emotionally needy and in constant need of external validation and affirmation.

I’m a really, really good teacher. If I had to attend every faculty meeting and listen to how bad I am, I’d probably get upset. If I had restriction after restriction placed on me because my admin assumed I’m bad, I’d probably get upset.

You think “emotionally needy.” I think “abused.” I suppose it’s all a matter of perspective.

On the other hand, that's not what's happening, so...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is about time the police start releasing this type of info about their work. Jawando and the anti police crowd have been controlling the entire narrative for the past three years, so when that's all people hear, they assume it must be true. and it's not. good policing helps keep the community safe.

And bad policing does the opposite.

You fix that by getting rid of bad policing. Not by getting rid of all policing. Wise use of pretext stops is great policing

Nobody is proposing getting rid of all policing.

Pretextual stops - aka lies - are bad policing.

I don't think you understand what pretext stops are. They are perfectly legal.

They can be both: legal, and lies.

Please explain how they are "lies."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretext

So pulling someone over for crossing the yellow line to figure out if they are drunk or not is a lie. That's the only way police can get to DUI. Someone has to violate minor traffic laws first.

No, pulling someone over for crossing the yellow line is pulling someone over for crossing the yellow line. Which the bill would continue to allow. Driving erratically is a hazard, whether you're drunk or sober.