Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

That's silly. The law prohibits "any window tinting materials added after manufacture of the vehicle that do not allow a light transmittance through the window of at least 35%". Who is able to accurately judge, when a car goes by, whether the window tinting is after market and allows only 30% (not legal) vs 35% (legal)? You can argue that the legislators have written a law that's impossible to enforce, and I would agree with that. But it's still the police officer deciding to do the given traffic stop based on the police officer's deciding that the windows are too dark.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

Anonymous wrote:There is a big example already of a stop removing lots of fetanyl and guns from a stop that would be banned under his proposed bill.

Now let's look at all of the stops that didn't do that. The police do not put out news releases about how last week they pulled over 148 (or however many) drivers and did not find any guns or fentanyl.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

There is a big example already of a stop removing lots of fetanyl and guns from a stop that would be banned under his proposed bill.

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

I don't know why everyone thinks Jawando is so soft on crime. Sure, we're in the middle of a crime surge, but look at the great idea he has for dealing with it. Surely it will help to prohibit police from pulling people over for a *very small* number of things like:

Certificates of title, vehicle licensing, registration, or insurance

Driving with improper equipment

Lighted lamps required

Use of headlights while windshield wipers are operated under certain weather conditions

Headlights

Illumination of rear license plate

Stop lamps and turn signals

Color of lamps and lighting equipment

Rear red-light reflectors

Stoplights

Glare or dazzling lamp lights

Use of multi-beam road lighting

Number of driving lights required

Signs, posters, and other nontransparent materials on windshields

Window Tinting

Source: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/02/24/jawando-and-mink-introduce-bill-to-limit-traffic-stops/

Anonymous wrote:This same exact diversion tactic happened on a Kristin Mink thread a while back.

Someone says something from the far left that seems outlandish. A few people take the bait and debate it. Some even go too far the other way and say something offensive from a right lens.

Either way- the OP has won- the thread is no longer about the original suspect, in this case Will Jawando.

This poster will note vote for WJ in the primary or general. Zero chance. Middle of the road Dem here.

This same exact diversion tactic happened on a Kristin Mink thread a while back.

Someone says something from the far left that seems outlandish. A few people take the bait and debate it. Some even go too far the other way and say something offensive from a right lens.

Either way- the OP has won- the thread is no longer about the original suspect, in this case Will Jawando.

Anonymous wrote:He’s a hard no for me. I’m not a right winger and I view him as soft on crime and anti police.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three of my close family members are police officers including my retired father. They would all admit police departments have problems including inadequate training and a few bad apples. Every single one of them retired the moment they were eligible because of the danger and stress. The thing I have discovered is that everyone wants to defund the police until they are unfortunate enough to need them for something.

The complete "a few bad apples" saying is: a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel.

Yet we know that isn’t accurate. There are a few bad doctors. Are all doctors spoiled? There are a few bad teachers. Are all teachers spoiled? There are a few bad humans. Are all humans spoiled?

We don’t throw out an entire group of people based on the worst among them.

Jawando’s legislation (to get this back on track) tends to follow the “all police are bad apples” train of thought. His current legislation, and even the language he used to introduce it, demonstrate that.

We do not know that at all. A few bad apples actually do spoil the whole barrel. If you think the bad police officers don't spoil all police officers, then you shouldn't use the phrase "a few bad apples", which suggests that the bad police officers DO spoil all police officers.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-spoil-the-barrel-metaphor-phrase

For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever heard anybody (mis)use the phrase "a few bad apples" to describe doctors or teachers or humans.

So to be clear: Are you suggesting the term only applies to police officers? I’m sure we can agree there are bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad humans. In all of those cases, are you suggesting that the professional should be judged by his/her own merit? But police should not?

Also, I never used the phrase. That was another poster. Personally, I don’t subscribe to a “bad apple” belief about any group of people.

Think poorly of him. No substance in that man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. He destroyed mcps.

+1 don't his kids go to private school?

One of his kids goes to private school.